Humanity demands that we speak out, bear witness, and tell the truth for a better world (see “Gideon Polya Writing”: https://sites.google.com/site/gideonpolyawriting/ and “Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/home ).
The World is facing a climate emergency due to global warming from man-derived greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. The atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is now (2016) 400 parts per million (ppm) and increasing at 3 ppm per year [it reached 420 ppm in 2021]. Until recently the atmospheric CO2 concentration was in the range of 180-300 ppm for the last 800,000 years, fluctuations in this range giving rise to successive glacial and inter-glacial periods that imposed selection pressures upon evolving humanity. The average surface temperature is now +1.25C above that in 1900 and this has already been associated with major climate, weather and biological disruptions. Indeed the species extinction rate is now 100-1,000 timers greater than normal. [1].
NEW BOOK: for a detailed account of the worsening Climate Crisis, Climate Genocide, and how Humanity must urgently address this existential threat see Gideon Polya, “Climate Crisis, Climate Genocide & Solutions”, 846 pages, Korsgaard Publishing, Germany , 2021: https://www.amazon.com.au/CLIMATE-CRISIS-GENOCIDE-SOLUTIONS/dp/8793987285 .
James Hansen et al, (2016): “The rapid rise of global temperature that began about 1975 continues at a mean rate of about 0.18 °C/decade, with the current annual temperature exceeding +1.25 °C relative to 1880–1920" (Hansen, J., Sato, M., Hearty, P., Ruedy, R., Kelley, M., Masson-Delmotte, V., Russell, G., Tselioudis, G., Cao, J., Rignot, E., Velicogna, I., Kandiano, E., von Schuckmann, K., Kharecha, P., Legrande, A. N., Bauer, M., and Lo, K.-W., “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous”, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059-20179, doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-2015, 2015: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.html ).
Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only about 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming. Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050 (UN Population Division) , these estimates translate to a Climate Genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including roughly twice the present population of particular mainly non-European groups, specifically 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. [2].
Collective, national responsibility for this already commenced Climate Genocide is in direct proportion to per capita national pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (GHGs). Indeed, fundamental to any international agreement on national rights to pollute our common atmosphere and oceans should be the belief that “all men are created equal”. However reality is otherwise: “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 25 (Australia; or 74 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included). [2].
Basically we know what the problem is (man-made GHG pollution) and how to solve it. Fundamentally, as enunciated by 300.org, we need to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration to about 300 ppm for a safe planet for all peoples and all species. [3].
To return to a safe planet for all peoples and all species we must achieve the following [4]:
1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying.
2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO2 to a safe level of about 300 ppm as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists.
3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth.
We understand the problem and have the technological solutions – the impending catastrophe simply does not have to happen. Are we going to be able to overcome the current political stasis and act before it is too late for Humanity and the Biosphere? Is it too late? Are we all doomed?
The international consensus basis of the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers (2014) has resulted in a report that softens the present acute seriousness of unaddressed man-made climate change. Thus the IPCC Summary argues for a limitation of temperature rise to 2oC through limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution of the atmosphere to 450 ppm CO2 -equivalent but hard evidence says that we have already reached 478 ppm CO2 -equivalent, that 2oC is dangerous and essentially inevitable, and that the world will use up its Carbon Budget for a 75% chance of avoiding 2oC within about 4 years (see Gideon Polya, “International consensus-based IPCC Summary For Policymakers (2014) downplays acute seriousness of Climate Crisis”, Countercurrents, 12 November, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya121114.htm )].
On the desperately optimistic side, according to Ray Kurzweil, Google's director of engineering, in 15 years' time computers will be more intelligent than we are and will be able to understand what we say, learn from experience, make jokes, tell stories and even flirt (see Nadia Khomani, “2029: the year that robots will have the power to outsmart their makers”, Guardian, 23 February 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/computers-cleverer-than-humans-15-years). According to the Australian Climate Commission (now sacked by the climate criminal, pro-pollution, anti-science, terracidal Australian Coalition Government) the world has only 15 years left at current rates of pollution before it exceeds the terminal carbon pollution budget of 600 Gt CO2 that must not be exceeded if we are to have a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2C temperature rise ( see Australian Climate Commission, “The critical decade 2013: a summary of climate change science, risks and responses”, 2013, p7: http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/The-Critical-Decade-2013-Summary_lowres.pdf ). The smart robots might evolve just in time to save their makers, Humanity.
For realistically pessimistic expert opinions also see the website "Too late to avoid global warming catastrophe": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/too-late-to-avoid-global-warming as well as this website “Are we doomed?”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/are-we-doomed and . However technologies - albeit expensive technologies - do exist to decarbonize the atmosphere (biochar, Accelerated Weathering of Limestone, mineral carbonation and Carbon Capture and Storage) (see Gideon Polya, “Intergenerational Theft – For Every $1 For Coal Today Future Generations Will Pay $1-$14 To Sequester CO2”, Countercurrents, 8 April, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya080415.htm ) . Further, we must keep on trying to make the horrific future “less bad” – indeed estimates that it is too late to avoid catastrophic plus 2 degrees Centigrade of warming should galvanize activists to more effective action..
The Historical Carbon Debt (aka Historical Climate Debt) of a country can be measured by the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) it has introduced into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century. Thus the total Carbon Debt of the world from 1751-2016 is about 1,850 billion tonnes CO2. Assuming a damage-related Carbon Price of $200 per tonne CO2-equivalent, this corresponds to a Carbon Debt of $370 trillion, similar to the total wealth of the world and 4.5 times the world’s total annual GDP. Using estimates from Professor James Hansen of national contributions to Historical Carbon Debt and assuming a damage-related Carbon Price in USD of $200 per tonne CO2-e, the World has a Carbon Debt of US$370 trillion that is increasing at US$13 trillion per year, and Australia has a Carbon Debt of US$7.5 trillion (A$10 trillion) that is increasing at US$400 billion (A$533 billion) per year and at US $40,000 (A$53,000) per head per year for under-30 year old Australians (see James Hansen, “Letter to PM Kevin Rudd by Dr James Hansen”, 2008: http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf ; Chris Hope, “How high should climate change taxes be?”, Working Paper Series, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, 9.2011: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/wp1109.pdf ; “Carbon Debt Carbon Credit”: https://sites.google.com/site/carbondebtcarboncredit/ ). Young people in particular must demand cessation of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution ASAP and climate revolution now (see “Climate Justice & Intergenerational Equity”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-justice ; "Climate Revolution Now": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-revolution ).
This alphabetically-organized website records the opinions of leading scientists and writers on this terminal question for Humanity.
[1]. Dr Gideon Polya ,“Climate change course”, 2011 via Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: http://yvcag.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html and
https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/2011-climate-change-\
course ) and 300.org (see: http://300org.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html
and https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course .
[2]. “Climate Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/ .
[3]. 300.org: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/ .
[4]. “Climate crisis facts and required actions”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group: https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-crisis-facts-required-actions .
Carbon Debt:
Carbon Debt reflects the inescapable future cost in today's dollars of fixing the remorselessly increasing climate damage. Carbon Debt is the historical contribution of countries to the carbon pollution of the atmosphere and can be variously expressed as Gt CO2-e (gigatonnes or billions of tonnes of CO2-equivalent) or in dollar terms by applying a Carbon Price. Thus leading climate economist Dr Chris Hope from 90-Nobel-Laureate Cambridge University has estimated a damage-related Carbon Price in US dollars of $150 per tonne CO2-e (see Dr Chris Hope, “How high should climate change taxes be?”, Working Paper Series, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, 9.2011: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/wp1109.pdf ).
The World added 350 Gt C (1285 Gt CO2) to the atmosphere in 1751-2006 (see James Hansen, “Letter to PM Kevin Rudd by Dr James Hansen”, 2008: http://www.aussmc.org.au/documents/Hansen2008LetterToKevinRudd_000.pdf ) and currently adds a further 64 Gt CO2-e annually (see Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang, “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf ).
The World has a 1751-2006 Carbon Debt of 350 Gt C x (3.67 Gt CO2/Gt C) x $150 per tonne CO2-e = $193 trillion plus a 2007-2015 Carbon Debt of (64 Gt CO2-e /year) x ($150 /t CO2-e) x 8 years = $76.8 trillion or a total 1751-2015 Carbon Debt of $270 trillion (about 3 times the annual world GDP of $85 trillion) that is increasing by about 64 Gt CO2-e/year x ($150 /t CO2-e) = $9.6 trillion/year or about $10 trillion each year.
By way of a national example, Australia is a world-leading annual per capita GHG polluter with a 1751-2006 Carbon Debt of 5.9 Gt C x (3.67 Gt CO2-e/Gt C) x ($150 /t CO2-e) = $3.2 trillion plus a 2007-2015 Carbon Debt of 2 Gt CO2-e/year x ($150 /t CO2-e) x 8 years = $2.4 trillion i.e. a total 1751-2015 Carbon Debt of $5.6 trillion (A$7.2 trillion) that is increasing at 2 Gt CO2-e /year x ($150 /t CO2-e) = $300 billion (A$385 billion) per year. Thus Australia (population 24 million) with 0.34% of the world's population has 2.1% of the world's Carbon Debt. The Australian Carbon Debt will have to be paid by the young and future generations and for under-30 year old Australians is increasing at about $30,000 (A$38,500) per person per year, noting that the annual Australian per capita income is about $65,000 (A$83,000) (see Gideon Polya, “2015 A-to-Z alphabetical list of actions and advocacies for climate change activists”, Countercurrents, 14 January, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya140115.htm ).
Some useful compendia about climate change information, requisite actions & expert opinions:
“1% ON 1%: one percent annual wealth tax on One Percenters”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/1-on-1 .
“2011 climate change course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course .
300.org: . https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org .
“300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm CO2”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm .
“Carbon Debt Carbon Credit”: https://sites.google.com/site/carbondebtcarboncredit/ .
"Climate Revolution Now": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-revolution .
“Cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020”: https://sites.google.com/site/cutcarbonemissions80by2020/ .
“100% renewable energy by 2020”: https://sites.google.com/site/100renewableenergyby2020/ .
“Climate Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/ .
“Gas is not clean energy”: https://sites.google.com/site/gasisnotcleanenergy/ .
“Biofuel Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/biofuelgenocide/ .
“Divest from fossil fuels”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/divest-from-fossil-fuels .
“Climate Justice & Intergenerational Equity”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-justice .
“Stop climate crime”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-climate-crime .
“Stop air pollution deaths”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-air-pollution-deaths
“Are we doomed?”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/are-we-doomed .
“Methane Bomb Threat”: https://sites.google.com/site/methanebombthreat/ .
“Punish climate criminals”: https://sites.google.com/site/punishclimatecriminals/ .
“Nuclear weapons ban, end poverty and reverse climate change”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/nuclear-weapons-ban .
"Too late to avoid global warming catastrophe": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/too-late-to-avoid-global-warming .
“Stop state terrorism” : https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/ [state and corporate complicity in worsening climate genocide and 7 million annual air pollution deaths from carbon fuel burning].
"State crime and non-state terrorism": https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/ [state and corporate complicity in worsening climate genocide and 7 million annual air pollution deaths from carbon fuel burning].
James Hansen et al. (2016): “This paleo-millennial timescale should not be misinterpreted as the timescale for ice sheet response to a rapid, large, human-made climate forcing. These climate feedbacks aid interpretation of events late in the prior interglacial, when sea level rose to +6–9 m with evidence of extreme storms while Earth was less than 1C warmer than today. Ice melt cooling of the North Atlantic and Southern oceans increases atmospheric temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, thus driving more powerful storms. The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and ongoing observations together imply that 2C global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous. Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) non-linearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years” (James Hansen et al., “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observation that 2 degree C global warming could be dangerous”, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3761–3812, 2016: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf ).
1.5C TEMPERATURE RISE EXCEEDANCE LIKELY WITHIN DECADE (BEFORE 2026).
Report by Laurie Goering for Reuters on exceedance of 1.5C target in a decade (2016): “ The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty, scientists said this week. Last December, 195 nations agreed to try to hold world temperature rise to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius, with an aim of 1.5 degrees Celsius. But the planet is already two-thirds of the way to that lower and safer goal, and could begin to pass it in about a decade, according to Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre. With world emissions unlikely to slow quickly enough to hit that target, it will probably be necessary to remove some carbon pollution from the atmosphere to stabilize the planet, scientists said at a University of Oxford conference on how to achieve the 1.5 degree goal. That could happen by planting forests or by capturing and then pumping underground emissions from power plants. Or countries could turn to controversial "geoengineering" techniques, such as blocking some of the sunlight arriving on the planet, to hold down temperatures, they said. "Negative emission technologies are likely to be needed, whether we like them or not," said Pete Smith, a plant and soil scientist at the University of Aberdeen” (Laurie Goering, “Climate change could cross key threshold in a decade: scientists”, Reuters Global Energy News, 22 September 2016: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-impacts-conference-idUSKCN11S1FE ).
Report on Dr Richad Betts (head of climate impacts research at the Met Office Hadley Centre, UK) on 1.5C exceedance (2016): “The planet has already heated up 1.0 C (1.8 F), and could see its first year above 1.5 C "within a decade," said Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the Met Office Hadley Centre in England” (see “Fossil fuel reserves would crush climate goals”, Phys.org, 22 September 2016 : http://phys.org/news/2016-09-fossil-fuel-reserves-climate-goals.html ).
Liam Wagner, Ian Ross, John Foster and Ben Hankamer on likely exceedance of plus 1.5C by 2020 (2016): “The United Nations Conference on Climate Change (Paris 2015) reached an international agreement to keep the rise in global average temperature ‘well below 2°C’ and to ‘aim to limit the increase to 1.5°C’. These reductions will have to be made in the face of rising global energy demand. Here a thoroughly validated dynamic econometric model (Eq 1) is used to forecast global energy demand growth (International Energy Agency and BP), which is driven by an increase of the global population (UN), energy use per person and real GDP (World Bank and Maddison). Even relatively conservative assumptions put a severe upward pressure on forecast global energy demand and highlight three areas of concern. First, is the potential for an exponential increase of fossil fuel consumption, if renewable energy systems are not rapidly scaled up. Second, implementation of internationally mandated CO2 emission controls are forecast to place serious constraints on fossil fuel use from ~2030 onward, raising energy security implications. Third is the challenge of maintaining the international ‘pro-growth’ strategy being used to meet poverty alleviation targets, while reducing CO2 emissions. Our findings place global economists and environmentalists on the same side as they indicate that the scale up of CO2 neutral renewable energy systems is not only important to protect against climate change, but to enhance global energy security by reducing our dependence of fossil fuels and to provide a sustainable basis for economic development and poverty alleviation. Very hard choices will have to be made to achieve ‘sustainable development’ goals.…
To stay within a 1.5°C global warming limit, safely extractable reserves are forecast to be consumed by 2020. (Fig 3A yellow). While it is possible that these time-points can be shifted back through rapid adoption of renewables, the degree to which this is possible is severely limited by the short time frame available to do so. Even the 3°C limit will, according to this model will be very challenging to meet by 2033 (Fig 3A dark orange) …
The results reported in this paper suggest that even stabilizing fossil fuel use will be politically challenging. Despite the >1000% increase in non-hydro renewables between 1990 and 2014 renewable energy systems deployment, the percentage of energy derived from renewables has not increased at a rate capable of keeping up with the growth in global energy demand and only makes a small contribution to primary energy supplies. To achieve significant CO2 emissions reductions without a requires:
the prolonged reduction of global economic growth to levels lower than those prevailing after the recent Global Financial Crisis (which negatively impacts poverty alleviation)
a reduction in population growth more rapid than generally projected for example through increased equality, education and employment of women (reduction not yet noted)
a significantly increased energy efficiency (e.g. the Blue map target) beyond historical precedent and/or
a rapid transition to CO2 neutral renewable energy sources.
Based on this we conclude that globally it is essential to accelerate the transition to sustainable long term, CO2-neutral energy systems if continued prosperity is to be achieved. Tapping into the huge energy resource of the sun (3020 ZJ yr-1 vs. ~0.56ZJ yr-1 total global energy demand) is one such option both to produce electricity (20% of global energy demand) and fuels (80% of energy demand) (Liam Wagner, Ian Ross, John Foster and Ben Hankamer, “Trading off global fuel supply, CO2 emissions and sustainable development”, Plos, 9 March 2016: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149406 ).
James Hansen et al, (2016): “The rapid rise of global temperature that began about 1975 continues at a mean rate of about 0.18 °C/decade, with the current annual temperature exceeding +1.25 °C relative to 1880–1920. Global temperature has just reached a level similar to the mean level in the prior interglacial (Eemian) period, when sea level was several meters higher than today, and, if it long remains at this level, slow amplifying feedbacks will lead to greater climate change and consequences. The growth rate of climate forcing due to human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs) increased over 20 % in the past decade mainly due to resurging growth of atmospheric CH4, thus making it increasingly difficult to achieve targets such as limiting global warming to 1.5 °C or reducing atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm. Such targets now require "negative emissions", i.e., extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. If rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions begins soon, most of the necessary CO2 extraction can take place via improved agricultural and forestry practices, including reforestation and steps to improve soil fertility and increase its carbon content. In this case, the magnitude and duration of global temperature excursion above the natural range of the current interglacial (Holocene) could be limited and irreversible climate impacts could be minimized. In contrast, continued high fossil fuel emissions by the current generation would place a burden on young people to undertake massive technological CO2 extraction, if they are to limit climate change. Proposed methods of extraction such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or air capture of CO2 imply minimal estimated costs of 104–570 trillion dollars this century, with large risks and uncertain feasibility. Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, possibly implausible cleanup or growing deleterious climate impacts or both, scenarios that should provide both incentive and obligation for governments to alter energy policies without further delay” (Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., von Schuckmann, K., Beerling, D. J., Cao, J., Marcott, S., Masson-Delmotte, V., Prather, M. J., Rohling, E. J., Shakun, J., and Smith, P.: Young People's Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions, Earth Syst. Dynam., 2016: http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-42/ ).
Dr Ed Hawkins (Climate scientist, National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS), University of Reading, UK) has generated an animated spiral graphic of monthly HadCRUT4.4 global temperature anomaly data from January 1850 – March 2016, relative to the mean of 1850-1900. We are spiralling towards the plus 1.5C limit and hence to the plus 2C limit set by the Paris Agreement (Ed Hawkins, “Spiralling global temperatures”, Climate Lab Book, Open Climate Science, 9 May 2016: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/spiralling-global-temperatures/ ; see also Andrea Thompson, “See Earth’s temperature rise spiral toward 2C rise- graphic”, Guardian, 10 May 2016: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/see-earths-temperature-spiral-toward-2c-rise-graphic ).
Dr Jacqueline McGlade (UN Environment Program, UNEP, chief scientist): “We have to see emissions peaking by 2020, otherwise reaching the 1.5 degree target becomes virtually impossible” (Jacqueline McGlade quoted in Jessica Shankleman, “Climate headed for catastrophic change despite Paris Accord”, Bloomberg, 3 November 2016: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-03/world-climate-headed-for-catastrophic-change-despite-paris-deal ).
Erik Solheim (Head of UN Environment) and Jacqueline McGlade (UN Environment Chief Scientist) (November 2016) in Forward to the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2016: “ the Emissions Gap Report tracks our progress in restricting global warming to 1.5 - 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century. This year’s data shows that overall emissions are still rising, but more slowly, and in the case of carbon dioxide, hardly at all. The report foresees further reductions in the short term and increased ambition in the medium term. Make no mistake; the Paris Agreement will slow climate change. The recent Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol will do the same. But not enough: not nearly enough and not fast enough. This report estimates we are actually on track for global warming of up to 3.4 degrees Celsius. Current commitments will reduce emissions by no more than a third of the levels required by 2030 to avert disaster. The Kigali Amendment will take off 0.5 degrees Celsius, although not until well after 2030. Action on short-lived climate pollutants, such as black carbon, can take off a further 0.5 degrees Celsius. This means we need to find another one degree from somewhere to meet the stronger, and safer, target of 1.5 degrees Celsius warming. So, we must take urgent action. If we don’t, we will mourn the loss of biodiversity and natural resources. We will regret the economic fallout. Most of all, we will grieve over the avoidable human tragedy; the growing numbers of climate refugees hit by hunger, poverty, illness and conflict will be a constant reminder of our failure to deliver” (Erik Solheim and Jacqueline McGlade, “Emissions Gap Report 2016”, Forward, November 2016: http://web.unep.org/emissionsgap/ ).
UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2016 Executive Summary: “Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production and other industrial processes are the major source of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, they account for about 68 per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissions, and were estimated to be 36.2 GtCO2 in 2015… In summary, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow, and while the indications are encouraging that the growth rate of global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and industry is slowing, it is still too early to say whether this is likely to be permanent. The continued growth of global emissions and the underlying trends show that the world is not yet on a trajectory that allows for a transition to stringent low emissions development pathways consistent with the stated temperature goals [no more than plus 1.5-2C] … It is likely the last chance to keep the option of limiting global warming to 1.5°C in 2100 open, as all available scenarios consistent with the 1.5°C goal imply that global greenhouse gas emissions peak before 2020… In line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s definition of “likely”, this report generally uses a 66 per cent or higher probability… As in the earlier Emissions Gap Reports, it is important to highlight that most scenarios that are available in the literature, and that limit warming to below 2 or 1.5°C, assume the use of so-called negative emissions technologies in the second half of the century -- that is the active and permanent removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This can be achieved, for example, through sustainable afforestation and reforestation, enhanced soil carbon absorption, biochar, and the combination of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage… The emissions gap for 2030 is 12 to 14 GtCO2e compared with 2°C scenarios, for 1.5°C the gap is three GtCO2e larger. Even if fully implemented, the unconditional Intended Nationally Determined Contributions are only consistent with staying below an increase in temperature of 3.2°C by 2100 and 3.0°C, if conditional Intended Nationally Determined Contributions are included” (Executive Summary, UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2016: http://web.unep.org/emissionsgap/ ).
UNEP press release on UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2016, London (3 November 2016): “The world must urgently and dramatically increase its ambition to cut roughly a further quarter off predicted 2030 global greenhouse emissions and have any chance of minimizing dangerous climate change, UN Environment said today as it released its annual Emissions Gap report. Made public the day before the Paris Agreement comes into force, the report finds that 2030 emissions are expected to reach 54 to 56 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – far above the level of 42 needed to have a chance of limiting global warming to 2oC this century. One gigatonne is roughly equivalent to the emissions generated by transport in the European Union (including aviation) over a year. Scientists agree that limiting global warming to under 2oC this century (compared to pre-industrial levels), will reduce the likelihood of more-intense storms, longer droughts, sea-level rise and other severe climate impacts. Even hitting the lower target of 1.5 oC will only reduce, rather than eliminate, impacts. The predicted 2030 emissions will, even if the Paris pledges are fully implemented, place the world on track for a temperature rise of 2.9 to 3.4 degrees this century. Waiting to increase ambition would likely lose the chance to meet the 1.5 oC target, increase carbon-intensive technology lock-in and raise the cost of a global transition to low emissions” (UNEP press release on UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2016, London, “World must urgently up action to cut a further 25% from 2030 emissions, says UN Environmental report” 3 November 2016: http://web.unep.org/emissionsgap/ ).
V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California) (2008): “The observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) since the preindustrial era has most likely committed the world to a warming of 2.4°C (1.4°C to 4.3°C) above the preindustrial surface temperatures. The committed warming is inferred from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of the greenhouse forcing and climate sensitivity. The estimated warming of 2.4°C is the equilibrium warming above preindustrial temperatures that the world will observe even if GHG concentrations are held fixed at their 2005 concentration levels but without any other anthropogenic forcing such as the cooling effect of aerosols. The range of 1.4°C to 4.3°C in the committed warming overlaps and surpasses the currently perceived threshold range of 1°C to 3°C for dangerous anthropogenic interference with many of the climate-tipping elements such as the summer arctic sea ice, Himalayan–Tibetan glaciers, and the Greenland Ice Sheet. IPCC models suggest that ≈25% (0.6°C) of the committed warming has been realized as of now. About 90% or more of the rest of the committed warming of 1.6°C will unfold during the 21st century, determined by the rate of the unmasking of the aerosol cooling effect by air pollution abatement laws and by the rate of release of the GHGs-forcing stored in the oceans. The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries. Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4°C… It is now recognized that DAI [Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference] must involve a range of threshold values of global and regional surface temperature change (5) depending on the elements of the climate system that are being impacted by the warming. This perception has led to the notion of climate tipping elements (6), some of which are hypothesized to be triggered by global warming in the range of 1°C to 2°C, and many others when global warming is in the range of 3°C to 5°C (see Fig. 1 ) [Arctic summer sea ice, Himalayan Tibetan glaciers, Greenland ice sheet at ca 2C; Amazon rainforest at ca 3C; ENSO, Thermohaline circulation , West Antarctic ice sheet at ca 4C],” (V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng, “On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: formidable challenges ahead”, PNAS, vol. 105, no. 38, pp14245–14250: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14245.full ).
Carolyn Snyder (Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA) (2016): “Reconstructions of Earth’s past climate strongly influence our understanding of the dynamics and sensitivity of the climate system. Yet global temperature has been reconstructed for only a few isolated windows of time1, 2, and continuous reconstructions across glacial cycles remain elusive. Here I present a spatially weighted proxy reconstruction of global temperature over the past 2 million years estimated from a multi-proxy database of over 20,000 sea surface temperature point reconstructions. Global temperature gradually cooled until roughly 1.2 million years ago and cooling then stalled until the present. The cooling trend probably stalled before the beginning of the mid-Pleistocene transition3, and pre-dated the increase in the maximum size of ice sheets around 0.9 million years ago4, 5, 6. Thus, global cooling may have been a pre-condition for, but probably is not the sole causal mechanism of, the shift to quasi-100,000-year glacial cycles at the mid-Pleistocene transition. Over the past 800,000 years, polar amplification (the amplification of temperature change at the poles relative to global temperature change) has been stable over time, and global temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have been closely coupled across glacial cycles. A comparison of the new temperature reconstruction with radiative forcing from greenhouse gases estimates an Earth system sensitivity of 9 degrees Celsius (range 7 to 13 degrees Celsius, 95 per cent credible interval) change in global average surface temperature per doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide over millennium timescales. This result suggests that stabilization at today’s greenhouse gas levels may already commit Earth to an eventual total warming of 5 degrees Celsius (range 3 to 7 degrees Celsius, 95 per cent credible interval) over the next few millennia as ice sheets, vegetation and atmospheric dust continue to respond to global warming” (Carolyn Snyder, “Evolution of global temperature over the last two million years”, Nature, 26 September 2016: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature19798.html ).
Dr Andrew Glikson on Carolyn Snyder projections (2016): “Current greenhouse gas concentrations could warm the world 3-7℃ (and on average 5℃) over coming millennia. That’s the finding of a paper published in Nature today. The research, by Carolyn Snyder, reconstructed temperatures over the past 2 million years. By investigating the link between carbon dioxide and temperature in the past, Snyder made new projections for the future. The Paris climate agreement seeks to limit warming to a “safe” level of well below 2℃ and aim for 1.5℃ by 2100. The new research shows that even if we stop emissions now, we’ll likely surpass this threshold in the long term, with major consequences for the planet.…
Other research has shown that during the mid-Pliocene epoch (about 4.5 million years ago) atmospheric CO₂ levels of about 365-415ppm were associated with temperatures about 3–4 °C warmer than before the Industrial Revolution. This suggests that the climate is more sensitive than we thought. This is concerning because since the 18th century CO₂ levels have risen from around 280ppm to 402ppm in April this year. The levels are currently rising at around 3ppm each year, a rate unprecedented in 55 million years. This could lead to extreme warming over the coming millennia…
The new paper recalculates this sensitivity again – and unfortunately the results aren’t in our favour. The study suggests that stabilisation of today’s CO₂ levels would still result in 3-7℃ warming, whereas doubling of CO₂ will lead to 7-13℃ warming over millennia…
As yet we don’t know the details of how different parts of the Earth will respond to increasing greenhouse gases through both long-term warming and short-term regional or local reversals (stadials). Unless humanity develops methods for drawing down atmospheric CO₂ on a scale required to cool the Earth to below 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperature, at the current rate of CO₂ increase of 3ppm per year we are entering dangerous uncharted climate territory” (Andrew Glikson, “Current emissions could already warm world to dangerous levels: study”, The Conversation, 27 September 2016: https://theconversation.com/current-emissions-could-already-warm-world-to-dangerous-levels-study-66040?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%2027%202016%20-%205678&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%2027%202016%20-%205678+CID_0cc879e29f9bc359d48fa8ad3afac684&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Andrew%20Glikson%20explains ).
James Hansen et al. (2016): “This paleo-millennial timescale should not be misinterpreted as the timescale for ice sheet response to a rapid, large, human-made climate forcing. These climate feedbacks aid interpretation of events late in the prior interglacial, when sea level rose to +6–9 m with evidence of extreme storms while Earth was less than 1C warmer than today. Ice melt cooling of the North Atlantic and Southern oceans increases atmospheric temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, thus driving more powerful storms. The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and ongoing observations together imply that 2C global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous. Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) non-linearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years” (James Hansen et al., “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observation that 2 degree C global warming could be dangerous”, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3761–3812, 2016: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf ).
2 dozen prominent Australians have called for emergency-scale action on climate change in an open letter to the new parliament, published in "The Age" newspaper on 23 June 2016: “At the Paris climate talks, scientists and people from low-lying island states set 1.5ºC of warming as a red line that must not be crossed.
However, earlier this year, the global average temperature spiked past 1.6ºC of warming.
The bleaching of coral reefs around the world, increasing extreme weather events, the melting of large ice sheets and recent venting of methane from thawing permafrost make it abundantly clear that the earth is already too hot.
The future of human civilisation, and the survival of the precious ecosystems on which we depend, now hang in the balance.
There must be an immediate ban on new coal and gas developments and an emergency-speed transition to zero emissions.
We must begin the enormous task of safely drawing down the excess greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.
We call on the new parliament to declare a climate emergency.”
Philip Adams, broadcaster
Kirstie Albion, CEO Austn Youth Climate Coalition
Paul Barratt, former head Defence Dept
Prof. Judy Brett, historian
Dr Stephen Byrave, CEO Beyond Zero Emissions
Geoff Cousins AM, President Austn Conservation Foundation
Mary Crooks, CEO Vic. Women’s Trust
Prof. Peter Doherty, Nobel Laureate for Medicine
Ian Dunlop, former Chair Austn Coal Assoc.
Prof. Tim Flannery, palaeontologist
John Hewson, businessman and former Opposition leader
Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, marine scientist
Prof. David Karoly, atmospheric scientist
Prof. Carmen Lawrence, former WA premier
Dr Colin Long, Vic. Sec. Nat. Tertiary Education Union
Prof. Robert Manne, political scientist
Bill McKibben, author and co-founder 350.org
Christine Milne, Global Greens Ambassador
Paul Oosting, CEO GetUp
David Ritter, CEO Greenpeace Aust.
Prof. Peter Singer, moral philosopher
Prof. Fiona Stanley, epidemiologist
Dr John (Charlie) Veron, pioneer coral researcher
Mark Wakeham, CEO Environment Vic.
81 Australian Research Council Laureates signed an open letter re Australian bushfires and global warming threat (2020): “The tragedy of this summer’s bushfires commands our attention, and after aiding and supporting the victims it is important to learn from the event. The scale and ferocity of the recent fires are unprecedented since European settlement of this country. They arrived at the end of a year with the lowest average rainfall and the highest average temperatures ever recorded across Australia. Climate change has arrived, and without significant action greater impacts on Australia are inevitable. While many factors have contributed to the bushfire crisis, the role of exceptional heat and dryness cannot be ignored. Temperatures nearly everywhere on Earth have been rising for decades, a clear result of the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from fossil fuel use and other human activities. The increasing variability of rainfall across Australia, bringing more dry years, is a consequence. These outcomes were predicted decades ago…
The current impacts are happening with just 1 Celsius of global temperature increase, but we are set for the best part of another degree even if very strong international action is taken to reduce emissions. This means further increases in extreme fire risk, heat waves and flooding rains; ecosystems degraded and wild species forced to migrate or vanish; agricultural activities moved or abandoned, challenging our food security; and so on. If strong action is not taken, environmental degradation and social disruption will be much greater and in many cases adaptation will no longer be achievable. It would be naive to assume that such a world will still support human societies in their current form and maintain human well-being. This dire outlook demands stronger mitigation of carbon emissions…
A transition to lower, and eventually net zero emissions, is a huge task but is achievable and far less risky and irresponsible than allowing unmitigated warming…
Much research has already been done to identify the policies and technologies that can move us to where we need to go. What is lacking is the courage to implement them on the required scale. We call on all governments to acknowledge the gravity of the threat posed by climate change driven by human activities, and to support and implement evidence-based policy responses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in time to safeguard against catastrophe. We owe this to younger generations and those who come after them, who will bear the brunt of our decisions” (81 Australian Research Council Laureates, “Laureates Open Letter. An open latter on Australian bushfires and climate: urgent needs for deep cuts in carbon emissions”, 2020: https://laureatebushfiresclimate.wordpress.com/ .
Open Letter to Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull re the need for urgent climate action and signed by 154 Australian scientists (The Conversation, 25 August 2016 : http://theconversation.com/an-open-letter-to-the-prime-minister-on-the-climate-crisis-from-154-scientists-64357 ).
Dear The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP, Prime Minister of Australia,
The following is an open letter signed by 154 Australian atmospheric, marine, environmental, biological and medical scientists, including several leading climatologists, for your and your government’s attention.
In July 2016, global temperatures soared to the hottest in the 136 years of the instrumental record, 0.1℃ warmer than previous warm Julys in 2015, 2011 and 2009. It followed a succession of rising temperatures, moving from 0.42℃ above average in 2000, to 0.87℃ above average by 2015.
Developments in the atmosphere-ocean system reported by major climate research organisations (including NASA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US National Snow & Ice Data Center, the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, the Tyndall Centre, the Potsdam Institute; the science academics of dozens of nations; and in Australia the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology) include:
· A rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to 404.39 parts per million (ppm; as of July 2016), an average rise of 3.08 ppm per year. This rate is unprecedented in the geological record of the past 55 million years, and is tracking towards the stability threshold of the Antarctic ice sheet, estimated at around 450ppm atmospheric CO₂.
· The rise in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere and oceans is leading to an increase in extreme weather events relative to the period 1950-60, including tropical storms such as those in Fiji, Vanuatu and the Philippines, with lives lost and damage estimated in the billions of dollars. In Australia the frequency of extreme weather events has been increasing, and since 2001 the number of extreme heat records has outnumbered extreme cool records by almost three to one for daytime maximum temperatures, and around five to one for night-time minimum temperatures.
· Impacts on a similar scale are taking place in the ocean, where the CO₂ rise has caused an increase in acidity from pH 8.2 to 8.1 already. The pH is predicted to decrease to 7.8 by 2100, affecting coral reefs and the marine food chain.
· Ice sheet melt rates have been increasing and the rate of sea-level rise has been accelerating, from roughly 1.7mm per year over the past century to 3.2mm per year between 1993 and 2010, and to about 3.5mm per year today. This threatens low-lying islands, deltas and lower river valleys where billions of people live – a problem that is compounded by increased variability of river flows in terms of floods and droughts.
We are concerned that global warming, amplified by feedbacks from polar ice melt, methane release from permafrost, and extensive fires, may become irreversible, including the possible collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, a crucial component of the global climate system that transfers heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic.
According to James Hansen, NASA’s former chief climate scientist, “burning all fossil fuels would create a different planet than the one that humanity knows“. Joachim Schellnhuber, Germany’s chief climate scientist, has summed up the situation by saying: “We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet.”
We note your broad agreement with this point, in light of your 2010 statement that:
…we are as humans conducting a massive science experiment with this planet. It’s the only planet we have got… We know that the consequences of unchecked global warming would be catastrophic… We as a human species have a deep and abiding obligation to this planet and to the generations that will come after us.
While the Paris Agreement remains unbinding and global warming has received minimal attention in the recent elections, governments worldwide are presiding over a large-scale demise of the planetary ecosystems, which threatens to leave large parts of Earth uninhabitable.
We call on the Australian government to tackle the root causes of an unfolding climate tragedy and do what is required to protect future generations and nature, including meaningful reductions of Australia’s peak carbon emissions and coal exports, while there is still time.
There is no Planet B.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Christine Adams-Hosking, Conservation planner, University of Queensland
Associate Professor Stephen Adelstein, Medical scientist, University of Sydney
Professor Ross Alford, Tropical ecologist, James Cook University
Dr Wallace Ambrose, Archaeological anthropologist, ANU
Dr Martin Anda, Environmental engineer, Murdoch University
Dr Marion Anderston, Geochemist, Monash University
Professor Michael Archer, Paleontologist, UNSW Australia
Dr Leanne Armand, Marine Researcher, Macquarie University
Professor Patricia Armati, Medical scientist, University of Sydney
Professor Owen Atkin, Plant respiration researcher, ANU
Professor Elaine Baker, Marine scientist, University of Sydney
Associate Professor Cathy Banwell, Medical scientist, ANU
Dr Andrew Barnes, Aquatic animal health researcher, University of Queensland
Dr Fiona Beck, Renewable energy researcher, ANU
Dr Tom Beer, Climatic and environmental change researcher, CSIRO
Professor Andrew Blakers, Photovoltaics/energy storage researcher, ANU
Professor Phillip Board, Medical scientist, ANU
Professor Justin Borevitz, Plant geneticist, ANU
Dr Caryl Bosman, Environmental planning researcher, Griffith University
Professor David Bowman, Forestry researcher, University of Tasmania
Dr Timothy Broadribb, Plant Scientist, University of Tasmania
Dr Helen Brown, Environmental health researcher, Curtin University
Dr Tim Brown, Medicine and environment researcher, ANU
Professor Ralf Buckley, Conservation/ecotourism researcher, Griffith University
Dr Florian Busch, Plant scientist, ANU
Dr Jason Byrne, Urban design researcher, Curtin University
Professor Maria Byrne, Marine and developmental biologist, University of Sydney
Dr Martina Calais, Renewable energy researcher, Murdoch University
Associate Professor Craig Carter, Engineering and IT researcher, Murdoch University
Dr Phill Cassey, Ecologist, Adelaide University
Professor Carla Catterall, Ecologist, Griffith University
Dr Juleen Cavanaugh, Biomedical scientist, ANU
Professor Fred Chow, Plant biologist, ANU
Associate Professor David Cohen, Geochemist, UNSW Australia
Professor Steven Cooper, Evolutionary biologist, SA Museum
Professor Rod Connolly, Marine scientist, Griffith University
Professor Jann Conroy, Plant scientist, Western Sydney University
Dr Lucy Coupland, Medical scientist, ANU
Dr Joseph Coventry, Solar energy researcher, ANU
Dr Chris Creagh, Physicist, Murdoch University
Professor Patricia Dale, Environment/planning researcher, Griffith University
Dr Armanda Davies, Planning geographer, Curtin University
Dr Ian Davies, Forestry fire management researcher, ANU
Dr Kirsten Davies, Ethno-ecology and environmental law researcher, Macquarie University
Dr Robert Davis, Vertebrate biologist, Edith Cowan University
Professor Keith Dear, Global health researcher, ANU
Dr Fjalar de Haan, Sustainability researcher, University of Melbourne
Professor Hans Peter Dietz, Medical scientist, Penrith Hospital
Professor Bob Douglas, Medical scientist, ANU
Associate Professor Mark Douglas, Medical scientist, University of Sydney
Dr Jen Drysdale, Climate and energy researcher, University of Melbourne
Professor Angela Dulhunty, Medical scientist, ANU
Professor Robyn Eckersley, Climate change governance researcher, University of Melbourne
Dr Elin Charles Edwards, Environmental geographer, University of Queensland
Professor David Eldridge, Evolutionary biologist, UNSW Australia
Professor David Elsworth, Environmental ecologist, Western Sydney University
Associate Professor Jason Evans, Climate change researcher, UNSW Australia
Dr Isabelle Ferru, Medical scientist, ANU
Professor Tim Flannery, Climate Council
Professor Barry Fox, Ecologist, UNSW Australia
Dr Evan Franklin, Solar energy researcher, ANU
Dr Diego Garcia-Bellido, Paleontologist, University of Adelaide
Dr Stephen Garnett, Conservation and sustainability researcher, Charles Darwin University
Dr John Gillen, Soil scientist, ANU
Dr Andrew Glikson, Paleoclimatologist, ANU
Dr Susan Gould, Climate change researcher, Griffith UNiversity
Professor Colin Groves, Anthropologist, ANU
Dr Huade Guan, Hydro-meteorologist, Flinders University
Professor Neil Gunningham, Global governance researcher, ANU
Dr Asish Hagar, Medical scientist, UNSW Australia
Dr Nina Hall, Sustainable water researcher, University of Queensland
Dr Willow Hallgren, Atmospheric scientist, Griffith University
Dr Elizabeth Hanna, Environmental health researcher, ANU
Associate Professor David Harley, Epidemiologist, ANU
Professor Robert S. Hill, Paleobotanist, University of Adelaide
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Marine climatologist and Great Barrier Reef researcher, University of Queensland
Professor Geoff Hope, Archaeologist and natural history researcher, ANU
Associate Professor Michael Howes, Environmental scientist, Griffith University
Professor Lesley Hughes, Climate change and species researcher, Macquarie University
Dr Paul Humphries, Environmental scientist, Charles Sturt University
Professor Phillip Jenning, Energy researcher, Murdoch University
Professor Darryl Jones, Behavioural ecologist, Griffith University
Dr Hugh Jones, Medical scientist, University of Western Australia
Dr Jochen Kaempf, Physical oceanographer, Flinders University
Professor Jeffrey Keelan, Medical scientist, University of Western Australia
Professor Peter Kershaw, Biogeographer and botanist, Monash University
Dr Carsten Kulheim, Plant physiologist, ANU
Professor Rakkesh Kumar, Medical scientist, UNSW Australia
Dr Lori Lach, Rainforest conservationist, James Cook University
Professor Barry Lacopetta, Medical scientist, University of Western Australia
Professor Trevor Lamb, Medical scientist, ANU
Professor Tony Larkum, Plant biologist, University of Technology Sydney
Dr Annie Lau, Geography and environmental management researcher, University of Quensland
Professor Bill Laurance, Tropical environment and sustainability researcher, James Cook University
Associate Professor Fred Leusch, Soil, water and energy researcher, Griffith University
Professor Andrew Lowe, Plant conservationist, University of Adelaide
Dr Fabio Luciano, Medical scientist, UNSW Australia
Professor Justin Marshall, Marine biologist, University of Queensland
Dr Melanie Massaro, Ecologist and ornithologist, Charles Sturt University
Associate Professor John F. McCarthy, Resource environment researcher, ANU
Dr Allison McInnes, Plant biologist, UTS
AssociateProfessor Andrew McKenzie, Landscape planning researcher, University of Canberra
Dr Kathryn McMahon, Environmental researcher, Edith Cowan University
Professor Andrew Millington, Land change scientist, Flinders University
Professor Angela Moles, Evolutionary ecologist, UNSW Australia
Professor Renee Morris, Medical scientist, UNSW Australia
Professor Barbara Norman, Urban planning researcher, University of Canberra
Professor Nikos Ntoumanis, Behavioural medicine researcher, Curtin University
Dr Bradley Opdyke, Climate historian, ANU
Professor Richard G. Pearson, Marine and tropical biologist, James Cook University
Dr Barrie Pittock, Climate scientist, CSIRO
Dr Jason Potas, Medical scientist, ANU
Professor Susan Prescott, Medical scientist, University of Western Australia
Dr Lynda Prior, Climate researcher, University of Tasmania
Dr Thomas Prowse, Biologist, University of Adelaide
Professor Marie Ranson, Molecular biologist, University of Wollongong
Professor Steve Redman, Medical scientist, ANU
Associate Professor Tracy Rogers, Evolutionary ecologist, UNSW Australia
Professor Chris Ryan, Eco-innovation researcher, University of Melbourne
Dr Oz Sahnin, Climate change researcher, Griffith University
Associate Professor Peter Sainsbury, Climate and health researcher, University of Sydney
Professor David Sinclair, Medical scientist, UNSW Australia
Dr Tom Sobey, Medical scientist, UNSW Australia
Professor Will Steffen, Climate change researcher, ANU
Professor Peter Steinberg, Marine scientist, UNSW Australia
Associate Professor Christian Stricker, Medical scientist, ANU
Professor Ian Suthers, Marine biologist, UNSW Australia
Associate Professor Sue Taylor, Medical scientist, University of Western Australia
Dr Sebastian Thomas, Sustainability researcher, University of Melbourne
Dr Andrew Thomson, Solar researcher, ANU
Associate Professor Thomas Thorsten, Marine biologist, UNSW Australia
Associate Professor Ian Tibbetts, Marine Scientist, University of Queensland
Professor David Tissue, Plant ecophysiologist, Western Sydney University
Professor Matthias Tomczak, Oceanographer, Flinders University
Mr Shane Toohey, Medical scientist, University of Western Australia
Dr Gail Trapp, Medical scientist, UNSW Australia
Professor Patrick Troy, Human ecologist, ANU
Professor Tom Trull, Antarctic, oceans and atmosphere researcher, CSIRO
Professor David Tscharke, Medical scientist, ANU
Professor Chris Turney, Antarctic climatologist, UNSW Australia
Dr Tania Urmee, Renewable energy technologist, Murdoch University
Professor René Vaillancourt, Plant geneticist, University of Tasmania
Professor John Veevers, Earth scientist, Macquarie University
Professor Charlie Veron, Marine scientist, Australian Institute of Marine Science
Professor Phil Waite, Medical scientist, UNSW Australia
Dr Elaine Walker, Physics and energy researcher, Murdoch University
Dr Hayden Washington, Environmental researcher, UNSW Australia
Professor David Watson, Water and society ecologist, Charles Sturt University
Dr Scarla J. Weeks, Biophysical oceanographer, University of Queensland
Professor Adrian Werner, Hydrologist, Flinders University
Mr Peter Weiske, Medical and environmental scientist, ANU
Dr Jonathan Whale, Energy researcher, Murdoch University
Associate Professor George Wilson, Wildlife management researcher, ANU
Dr Phillip Zylstra, Forests and fire researcher, University of Wollongong
The International Scientific Conference on Climate Change took place in Copenhagen on the 10 - 12 March 2009 and involved several thousand delegates (see: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/ ) .
Synthesis Report of the March 2009 Copenhagen Scientific Climate Change Conference (see: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport ) : “Inaction is inexcusable”. [1].
[1]. Synthesis Report of the March 2009 Copenhagen Scientific Climate Change Conference: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport .
2015 SUVA DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE BY THE PACIFIC ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT FORUM: "We, the Leaders of the Pacific Islands Development Forum following open, transparent and inclusive discussions with stakeholders undertaken during the Pacific Islands Development Forum Third Annual Summit held in Suva, Fiji between 2-4 September 2015 declare that we:
1. Are gravely distressed that climate change poses irreversible loss and damage to our people, societies, livelihoods, and natural environments creating existential threats to our very survival
and other violations of human rights to entire Pacific Small Island Developing States;
2. Express profound concern that the scientific evidence unequivocally proves that the climate system is warming and that human influence on the climate system is clear, but appropriate responses are lacking;
3. See and suffer from the adverse impacts of climate change, including but not limited to increased intensity of tropical cyclones, sea level rise, severe storm surges, more frequent and more extreme weather events, coral bleaching, saltwater intrusions, higher king tides, coastal erosion, changing precipitation patterns, submersion of islands, and ocean acidification, with scientific evidence clearly informing us these impacts will further intensify over time…
5. Are deeply disappointed that current international pledges for action as contained in submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), to stabilize global average temperature increase to well below 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, remain grossly inadequate, with emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) continuing to rise;
6. Express grave concern that the continued increase in the production of fossil fuels, particularly the construction of new coal mines, undermines efforts to reduce global GHG emissions and the goal of decarbonising the global economy;
7. Highlight that irreversible loss and damage caused by climate change goes beyond adaptation and is already a reality for PSIDS if there is inadequate mitigation action, and that climate change is already resulting in forced displacement of island populations and the loss of land and territorial integrity and further highlight that such loss and damage results in breaches of social and economic rights…
9. Welcome the conclusion of the Structured Expert Dialogue of the 2013-15 Review under the UNFCCC, that the goal to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2⁰C above pre-industrial levels is inadequate in view of the ultimate objective of the Convention. The latest science suggests that the 2⁰C ‘guardrail’ concept is no longer safe for the survival of our Pacific Small Island Developing States;
10. Emphasize that scientific evidence indicates that limiting warming to well below 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels will significantly reduce impacts, risks, adaptation needs, as well as loss and damage, and that actions to this effect will not significantly impact on economies…(see Pacific Islands Development Forum 4 September 2015 "Suva Declaration on Climate Change": http://pacificidf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/PACIFIC-ISLAND-DEVELOPMENT-FORUM-SUVA-DECLARATION-ON-CLIMATE-CHANGE.v2.pdf ):
3 LAWS OF ECONOMICS MIRRORING 3 LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS & PERTINENT TO LOOMIMG TERRACIDE. Gideon Polya (Australian scientist) (2015): “Polya's 3 Laws of Economics mirror the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics of science and are (1) Price minus COP (Cost of Production) equals profit; (2) Deception about COP strives to a maximum; and (3) No work, price or profit on a dead planet. These fundamental laws help expose the failure of neoliberal capitalism in relation to wealth inequality, massive tax evasion by multinational corporations, and horrendous avoidable deaths from poverty and pollution culminating in general ecocide, speciescide, climate genocide, omnicide and terracide… The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the energy of a closed system is constant i.e. we can have different amounts of energy in different forms in different parts of the system (a human body, the planet, the universe), but the total energy remains a constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy (disorder) of the world strives to a maximum i.e. the world inexorably tends to randomness, chaos, disorder and minimum information content. We are familiar with so many examples of this e.g. (a) the drops of ink in a glass of water disperse until the ink particles are uniformly distributed; (b) despite inbuilt cellular biochemical repair and replication systems, we inevitably age and die; and (c) the accelerating expansion of the universe. The Third Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy (disorder) of a pure crystal of a pure chemical at the absolute zero temperature of zero (0) degrees Kelvin (minus 273.15 degrees Centigrade) is zero i.e. in a universe full of motion and increasing disorder there is a boundary state of zero disorder “ (see Gideon Polya. “Polya's 3 Laws Of Economics Expose Deadly, Dishonest And Terminal Neoliberal Capitalism”, Countercurrents,17 October, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya171015.htm ).
The world is badly running out of time to deal with man-made climate change and keep temperature rise to within 2 degrees Centigrade (2oC) - but how much time have we left? Answer (as of December 2012) : 5.3 years. The basis for this appalling conclusion is set out below.
The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, commonly known as the Copenhagen Summit, included the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Most countries subsequently signed up to the Copenhagen Accord that recognised that climate change is one of the greatest challenges to Humanity and that actions should be taken to keep any temperature increases to below 2 °C (see “2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference ).
In a 2009 report entitled "Solving the climate dilemma: a budget approach" the WBGU, that advises the German Government on climate change, estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2C (2oC, 2 degree Centigrade, 2 degree Celsius) temperature rise (EU policy and majority global policy since the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference) the world can emit no more than 600 billion tonnes CO2 (carbon dioxide) (600 Gt CO2) between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050 (see WBGU, “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach”: http://www.ecoequity.org/2009/10/solving-the-climate-dilemma-the-budget-approach/ ). Since CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas (GHG) we could roughly set the world’s terminal GHG pollution budget at 600 Gt CO2-e (CO2-equivalent, this term including other GHGs). Relative to commencement in 2010, how many years have we left before we exceed this terminal CO2 pollution budget of 600 Gt CO2-e?
The US Energy Information Administration (US EIA) provides detailed statistics on CO2 pollution and has provided estimates of global energy-related CO2 pollution between 2005 (28.181 Gt CO2) and 2035 (43.220 Gt CO2) (see US EIA, “Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions”, Table A10: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm ). Using this expertly-determined , year-by-year estimate of global energy-related CO2 emissions one can estimate that the post-2009 total will reach 588 Gt by the end of 2026 and 628 Gt by the end of 2028 i.e. the terminalCO2 pollution budget will be exceeded in mid-2027 or in roughly 14.5 years from now.
However energy-related CO2 pollution is a major part of the general greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution problem, CO2 pollution also occurs in cement manufacture and other naturally-occurring as well as synthetic greenhouse gases contribute to GHG pollution that can be expressed as CO2-equivalent (CO2-e). A GHG is methane (CH4), which is a major component of natural gas, is produced by methanogenic livestock and anaerobic degradation of plant materials in swamps, and is increasingly being released from CH4-water clathrates from shallow Arctic Ocean sea beds and the melting of the Arctic tundra (se “Atmospheric methane”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane ).
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 relative to that if CO2 (1.0) is 21 on a 100 year time frame but on a 20 year time frame and taking aerosol impacts into account, it is 105. This re-assessment of the GWP of CH4 becomes of great importance in assessing how many years we have left to tackle GHG pollution (see Drew T. Shindell , Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”, Science, 30 October 2009: Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716 ).
Thus the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) provides estimates of CH4 emissions from the US alone that total about 0.67 Gt CH4 annually or 0.67 Gt CH4 x 105 Gt CO2-e/Gt CH4 = 70.35 Gt CO2-e annually. If we set the terminal GHG pollution budget to 600 Gt CO2-e then the US alone has a mere 600 Gt CO2-e/(70.35 Gt CO2-e per year) = 8.5 years of such pollution of this single GHG before this terminal GHG pollution budget is exceeded (see “Greenhouse gas emissions”, US EPA: http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html ) .
In 2009 World Bank analysts used an estimate of a GWP of 72 for CH4 on a 20 year time frame to re-assess the contribution of livestock to man-made GHG pollution as over 32.564 Gt CO2-e/year of which 5.047 GT CO2-e/year is due to undercounted methane. This re-assessment lifts the annual GHG pollution from 41.744 Gt CO2-e to 63.803 Gt CO2-e. Assuming that live-stock-related GHG pollution increases in direct proportion ion to energy-related CO2 emissions, one can estimate that the world will reach 551.738 Gt CO2-e in 2017 and 624.363 Gt CO2-e in 2018 i.e. the World has 5.8 years at present rates before it exceeds the terminal CO2-e budget.
However one can re-assess the World Bank re-assessment by consider that CH4 has a GWP relative to CO2 of 105. This re-assessment indicates that the World will reach 573.167 Gt CO2-e in 2017 and 648.547 Gt CO2-e in 2018 i.e. the World has 5.3 years at present rates before it exceeds the terminal CO2-e budget.of 600 Gt CO2-e.
William J. Ripple, 15,364 signatories from 184 countries, “World scientists’ warning to Humanity: a second notice”, Bioscience, 13 November 2017: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229 .
"Twenty-five years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists and more than 1700 independent scientists, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the sciences, penned the 1992 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity”… These concerned professionals called on humankind to curtail environmental destruction and cautioned that “a great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.” In their manifesto, they showed that humans were on a collision course with the natural world…
On the twenty-fifth anniversary of their call, we look back at their warning and evaluate the human response by exploring available time-series data. Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse (figure 1…). Especially troubling is the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels (Hansen et al. 2013), deforestation (Keenan et al. 2015), and agricultural production—particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption (Ripple et al. 2014). Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century…
Figure 1. Trends over time for environmental issues identified in the 1992 scientists’ warning to humanity. The years before and after the 1992 scientists’ warning are shown as gray and black lines, respectively… Percentage [quasi-linear] change, since 1992, for the variables in each panel are as follows [explanations in square brackets]: (a) –68.1% [Ozone depletors (Mt CFC-11-equivalent per year); a good result showing that effective change is possible]; (b) –26.1% [Freshwater resources per capita (1,000 metre3 (c) –6.4% [Reconstructed marine catch (Mt per year))]; (d) +75.3% [Dead zones (number of affected regions)]; (e) –2.8% [Total forest (million ha)]; (f) –28.9% [Vertebrate species abundance (% of 1970)]; (g) +62.1% [CO2 emissions (Gt CO2 per year)]; (h) +167.6% [Temperature change (oC)]; and (i) humans: +35.5% [Population (billion individuals)], ruminant livestock: +20.5% [Population (billion individuals)]…
To prevent widespread misery and catastrophic biodiversity loss, humanity must practice a more environmentally sustainable alternative to business as usual. This prescription was well articulated by the world's leading scientists 25 years ago, but in most respects, we have not heeded their warning. Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out. We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home."
[For a detailed and docuemnted review see Gideon Polya, “Over 15,000 scientists issue dire warning to humanity on catastrophic climate change and biodiversity loss” ”, Countercurrents, 20 November 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/11/20/over-15000-scientists-issue-dire-warning-to-humanity-on-catastrophic-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss/ .]
Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of “A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It” among other books.
Dr Nafeez Ahmed on the HANDY model for Humanity (2014): “A new study sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution… The research project is based on a new cross-disciplinary 'Human And Nature DYnamical' (HANDY) model, led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharri of the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, in association with a team of natural and social scientists. The study based on the HANDY model has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological Economics… Applying this lesson [of past collapse due to a combination of resource depletion and wealth disparity] to our contemporary predicament, the study warns that: "While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support of doing nothing." However, the scientists point out that the worst-case scenarios are by no means inevitable, and suggest that appropriate policy and structural changes could avoid collapse, if not pave the way toward a more stable civilisation. The two key solutions are to reduce economic inequality so as to ensure fairer distribution of resources, and to dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources and reducing population growth: "Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion."” [1].
AHMED. Dr Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed ( bestselling author, award-winning investigative journalist, and noted international security scholar, as well as a policy expert, film maker, strategy and communications consultant, change activist, and author of Zero Point, and “A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It” which inspired the award-winning documentary feature film, “The Crisis of Civilization”) (2015) : “The much-vaunted COP21 negotiations in Paris are, despite the claims of world leaders, dead on arrival. Emissions reductions targets are not up for discussion. Those pledges are already on the table, having been put forward voluntarily by each country. Government negotiators in Paris are instead looking at banal details of how and when countries should commit to improving their voluntary pledges, and ensuring "transparency" and "accountability". Catastrophe? But current emissions pledges already guarantee disaster…But the more scientists learn, the more they realise we keep underestimating the risks. Last year, an analysis in Scientific American by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University explained that new research showed the two degree danger zone could be breached at our present rate of emissions within just 20 years. This means limiting global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations to around 405 parts per million (ppm). Even this, Mann explained, is based on “a conservative definition of climate sensitivity that considers only the so-called fast feedbacks in the climate system, such as changes in clouds, water vapor and melting sea ice. Some climate scientists, including James E. Hansen, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, say we must also consider slower feedbacks such as changes in the continental ice sheets”. That implies that a safe level of atmospheric CO2 is actually less than 350 ppm [2].
[1]. Dr Nafeez Ahmed, “NASA-funded study: industrial civilization headed for “irreversible collapse”?”, Guardian, 15 March 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists .
[2]. Nafeez Ahmed, “Paris Climate Negotiations Won’t Stop The Planet Burning”, Countercurrents, 7 December, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/ahmed071215.htm .
Dr Richard Alley is a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA (see: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapsing ).
Glaciologist Dr Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University on the reported slow-motion collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet (2014): “Very crudely, we are now committed to global sea level rise equivalent to a permanent [2012] Hurricane Sandy storm surge… The possibility that we have already committed to 3 or more meters of sea level rise from West Antarctica will be disquieting to many people, even if the rise waits centuries before arriving.” [1].
[1]. Dr Richard Alley quoted in Thomas Sumner, “West Antarctic ice sheet is collapsing”, Science Now, 12 May 2014: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapsing .
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is an international non-profit organization with the stated goals of promoting cooperation among scientists, defending scientific freedom, encouraging scientific responsibility, and supporting scientific education and science outreach for the betterment of all humanity. It is the world's largest and most prestigious general scientific society, with 126,995 individual and institutional members (2008) and is the publisher of the prestigious scientific journal Science (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science ).
AAAS on the threat of man-made climate change (2014): “Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. What We Know helps us understand the science behind the realities, risks and response to the climate challenge… The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems…
1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4˚ F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events – such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events – are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years.
2. We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts. Earth’s climate is on a path to warm beyond the range of what has been experienced over the past millions of years. The range of uncertainty for the warming along the current emissions path is wide enough to encompass massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems: as global temperatures rise, there is a real risk, however small, that one or more critical parts of the Earth’s climate system will experience abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes. Disturbingly, scientists do not know how much warming is required to trigger such changes to the climate system.
3. The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do. Waiting to take action will inevitably increase costs, escalate risk, and foreclose options to address the risk. The CO2 we produce accumulates in Earth’s atmosphere for decades, centuries, and longer. It is not like pollution from smog or wastes in our lakes and rivers, where levels respond quickly to the effects of targeted policies. The effects of CO2 emissions cannot be reversed from one generation to the next until there is a large- scale, cost-effective way to scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Moreover, as emissions continue and warming increases, the risk increases.” [1].
The top scientific journal Science and the popular Science Now that reports the latest news from Science are run by the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) which is the world’s largest general science association.
Science Now (AAAS) on the slow collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet (2014): “A disaster may be unfolding—in slow motion. Earlier this week, two teams of scientists reported that the Thwaites Glacier, a keystone holding the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet together, is starting to collapse. In the long run, they say, the entire ice sheet is doomed, which would release enough meltwater to raise sea levels by more than 3 meters. One team combined data on the recent retreat of the 182,000-square-kilometer Thwaites Glacier with a model of the glacier’s dynamics to forecast its future. In a paper published online today in Science, they report that in as few as 2 centuries Thwaites Glacier’s outermost edge will recede past an underwater ridge now stalling its retreat. Their modeling suggests that the glacier will then cascade into rapid collapse. The second team, writing in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), describes recent radar mapping of West Antarctica’s glaciers and confirms that the 600-meter-deep ridge is the final obstacle before the bedrock underlying the glacier dips into a deep basin. Because inland basins connect Thwaites Glacier to other major glaciers in the region, both research teams say its collapse would flood West Antarctica with seawater, prompting a near-complete loss of ice in the area... Core samples drilled into the inland basins that connect Thwaites Glacier with its neighbors have revealed algae preserved beneath the ice sheet, a hint that seawater has filled the basins within the past 750,000 years. That past flooding shows that modest climate warming can cause the entire ice sheet to collapse.” [2].
[Editor’s note: The atmospheric CO2 has been between 180 and 280 ppm for the last 800,000 years but has increased since the start of the Industrial revolution and is now about 400 ppm and increasing at a record 2.5 ppm per year and energy-linked CO2 pollution is remorselessly increasing (see “300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm”, 300.org: http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm ; US EIA, “Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions”, Table A10: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm ; US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Mauna Loa Observatory, “Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ ].
[1]. AAAS, “The reality, risks and response to climate change", What We Know (2014): http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/ .
[2]. Thomas Sumner, “West Antarctic ice sheet is collapsing”, Science Now, 12 May 2014: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapsing .
The 2009 Report of the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU, Wissenshaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen) was entitled “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach” and crucially stated: “The budget of CO2 emissions still available worldwide could be derived from the 2 degree C guard rail. By the middle of the 21st century a maximum of approximately 750 Gt CO2 (billion metric tons) may be released into the Earth’s atmosphere if the guard rail is to be adhered to with a probability of 67%. If we raise the probability to 75%, the cumulative emissions within this period would even have to remain below 600 Gt CO2. In any case, only a small amount of CO2 may be emitted worldwide after 2050. Thus, the era of an economy driven by fossil fuels will definitely have to come to an end within the first half of this century” (see: WBGU (German Advisory Council of Climate Change), “ Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach”: http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/sondergutachten/sn2009/wbgu_sn2009_en.pdf ).
Using country by country data for greenhouse gas emissions per capita (tonnes CO2-e per person per year) (see “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita ) one can readily determine for each country in the world how many years left to zero pollution RELATIVE TO 2010.
The average world population in the period 2010 and 2050 will be 8.321 billion (see UN Population Division, 2010 Revision). Accordingly, the per capita share of this terminal CO2 pollution budget is less than 600 billion tonnes CO2/8.321 billion people = less than 72.1 tonnes CO2 per person.
Years to the required “fair shares” total cessation of GHG pollution at current rates of pollution = 72.1 tonnes CO2-e per person/ (tonnes CO2-e per person per year).
Belize (0.8 years), Qatar (1.3), Guyana (1.4), Malaysia (1.9), United Arab Emirates (2.0), Kuwait (2.4), Papua New Guinea (2.5), Brunei (2.8), Australia (2.8; 1.1 if including its huge GHG Exports), Antigua & Barbuda (2.8), Zambia (2.9), Canada (3.0), Bahrain (3.0), United States (3.1), Trinidad & Tobago (3.3), Luxembourg (3.4), Panama (3.7), New Zealand (3.7), Estonia (4.0), Botswana (4.1), Ireland (4.3), Saudi Arabia (4.4), Venezuela (4.6), Indonesia (4.8), Equatorial Guinea (5.0), Belgium (5.0).
Turkmenistan (5.1 years ), Singapore (5.1), Czech Republic (5.2), Liberia (5.2), Netherlands (5.3), Russia (5.3), Nicaragua (5.4), Finland (5.5), Oman (5.6), Palau (5.6), Brazil (5.6), Uruguay (5.7), Denmark (5.8). Germany (5.9), Mongolia (6.1), Israel (6.1), Nauru (6.2), Norway (6.3), South Korea (6.5), Kazakhstan (6.6), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (6.6), Libya (6.7), Greece (6.7), Japan (6.7), Myanmar (6.7), Taiwan (6.8), Cyprus (7.0), Slovenia (7.1), Cambodia (7.1), Austria (7.2), Iceland (7.2), Peru (7.3), Paraguay (7.3), Ukraine (7.4), Poland (7.5), South Africa (7.6), Argentina (7.8), Slovakia (7.8), Spain (7.8), Italy (7.8), Central African Republic (8.0), France (8.3), Suriname (8.4), Belarus (8.4), Gabon (8.6), Ecuador (8.8), Bolivia (8.9), Cameroon (9.5), Iran (9.5), Côte d’Ivoire (9.6), Sweden (9.6), Seychelles (9.7), Guatemala (9.7), Bulgaria (9.7), Serbia & Montenegro (9.7), Hungary (9.7), Congo, Democratic Republic (formerly Zaire) (9.7), Uzbekistan (9.9), Portugal (10.0).
Switzerland (10.2 years), Azerbaijan (10.6), Angola (10.8), Bahamas (10.9), Benin (11.1), Zimbabwe (11.1), Laos (11.3), Mexico (11.3), Nepal (11.4), Colombia (11.4), Namibia (11.4), Chile (11.4), Malta (11.8), Congo, Republic (12.0), Madagascar (12.0), Croatia (12.2), Jamaica (12.2), Macedonia (12.4), Barbados (12.4), Latvia (12.6), Mauritania (12.9), Turkey (12.9), Romania (13.1), Lithuania (13.4), Costa Rica (13.4), Lebanon (13.6), North Korea (13.9), Thailand (14.1), Jordan (14.7), Honduras (15.3), Sudan (15.7), Bosnia & Herzegovina (16.0), Algeria (17.2), Iraq (17.2), Sierra Leone (17.2), Syria (18.0), China (18.5), Tunisia (19.5), Dominican Republic (20.6 years).
St Kitts & Nevis (21.8), Nigeria (21.8), Fiji (21.8), Guinea (22.5), Mauritius (22.5), Cuba (23.3), Togo (23.3), Vanuatu (24.0), Philippines (24.0), Malawi (24.0), Mali (24.9), Chad (24.9), Sri Lanka (25.8), Uganda (26.7), Dominica (26.7), St Lucia (26.7), Egypt (27.7), Niue (27.7), Ghana (27.7), Moldova (28.8), Grenada (28.8), El Salvador (30.0), Guinea-Bissau (30.0), Tanzania (30.0), Djibouti (30.0).
Pakistan (31.3 years), Samoa (31.3), Tonga (31.3), Morocco (32.8), Senegal (32.8), Albania (32.8), Georgia (32.8), Armenia (34.3), St Vincent & Grenadines (36.1), Kenya (36.1), Maldives (37.9), Kyrgyzstan (37.9), Burkina Faso (37.9), India (40.1), Cook Islands (40.1), Bhutan (42.4), Yemen (45.1), Tajikistan (45.1), Mozambique (45.1), Rwanda (45.1), Burundi (45.1), Lesotho (48.1), Swaziland (48.1).
Eritrea (51.5), Haiti (51.5), Solomon Islands (65.5), Vietnam (65.5), Cape Verde (65.5), Niger (65.5), Ethiopia (65.5), São Tomé and Príncipe (72.1), Afghanistan (80.1), The Gambia (80.1), Bangladesh (80.1), Comoros (103.0), Kiribati (120.2).
Professor Kevin Anderson is the Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, holds a joint chair in Energy and Climate Change at the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester and School of Environmental Sciences at University of East Anglia, is an honorary lecturer in Environmental Management at the Manchester Business School, and is an adviser to the British Government on climate change (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Anderson_%28scientist%29 )
Professor Anderson, together with Dr Alice Bows wrote an extremely important paper describing 6-8% annual GHG emissions reductions needed for 450 ppm CO2-equivalent (CO2-e): “According to the analysis conducted in this paper, stabilizing at 450 ppmv [carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2-e, atmospheric concentration measured in parts per million by volume] requires, at least, global energy related emissions to peak by 2015, rapidly decline at 6-8% per year between 2020 and 2040, and for full decarbonization sometime soon after 2050 …Unless economic growth can be reconciled with unprecedented rates of decarbonization (in excess of 6% per year), it is difficult to envisage anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilization at or below 650 ppmv CO2-e ... Ultimately, the latest scientific understanding of climate change allied with current emissions trends and a commitment to “limiting average global temperature increases to below 4oC above pre-industrial levels”, demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda, and the economic characterization of contemporary society” (see: Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows, “Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends”, Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc, A, 2008: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf ; Gideon Polya, “Good and bad climate news”, Green Blog, 2009: http://www.green-blog.org/2009/01/13/good-and-bad-climate-news/ ; and George Monbiot, “One shot left”, Monbiot.com (also published in the UK Guardian, 2008): http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/11/25/one-shot-left/ ).
Professor Kevin Anderson on how many will survive the century in a “terrifying prospect” (November 2009): “For humanity it's a matter of life or death. We will not make all human beings extinct as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive. But I think it's extremely unlikely that we wouldn't have mass death at 4C. If you have got a population of nine billion by 2050 and you hit 4C, 5C or 6C, you might have half a billion people surviving… The worst possible result at Copenhagen is a bad deal where the world leaders have to come home and say it's a good deal when its rubbish. That's the real danger – that they will feel under pressure to sign up to anything. That could lock us into something bad for the next ten years." [1].
[1]. Professor Kevin Anderson quoted by Jenny Fyall, “Warming “will wipe out billions””, The Scotsman, 29 November 2009: http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-billions39.5867379.jp .
Professor Kevin Anderson (director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change) (2009): “For humanity it’s a matter of life or death. We will not make all human beings extinct as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive. But I think it’s extremely unlikely that we wouldn’t have mass death at 4°C. If you have got a population of nine billion by 2050 and you hit 4°C, 5°C or 6°C, you might have half a billion people surviving” (Kevin Anderson quoted in Jenny Fyal, “Warming will “wipe out billions””, The Scotsman, 29 November 2009: https://www.webcitation.org/5ul6K9Jmt?url=http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-billions39.5867379.jp ).
Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov (30 January 1926 – 19 August 1998) was a Soviet Navy officer. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, as Commander of the Soviet submarine flotilla near Cuba, he prevented the launch of a nuclear torpedo from a Soviet submarine being threatened by US depth charges and therefore prevented a possible nuclear war. Thomas Blanton (then director of the National Security Archive) said in 2002 that "a guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world" (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov ).
Sir David Attenborough (present with the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the UN Security Council and addressing the UNSC) (2021): “There is no going back - no matter what we do now, it's too late to avoid climate change and the poorest, the most vulnerable, those with the least security, are now certain to suffer…. If we bring emissions down with sufficient vigour we may yet avoid the tipping points that will make runaway climate change unstoppable. In November this year, at COP26 in Glasgow, we may have out last opportunity to make the necessary step-change” (Gabrielle Waterman, “Sir David Attenborough tells UN “ It is too late to avoid climate change””, Climate Action, 26 February 2021: https://www.climateaction.org/news/sir-david-attenborough-tells-un-it-is-too-late-to-avoid-climate-change ).
Australian Academy of Science report, “The Risks To Australia of a 3°C Warmer World” ) (2021): “The total emission reductions currently pledged by the Australian and international governments through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement (UNFCCC), even if implemented on time, will translate as average global surface temperatures of 3°C or more above the pre-industrial period by 2100 (see Figure 1, page 18)… Sector-by-sector transition policies and support for regional economies will need to be designed to support vulnerable groups, including to ease the change for communities, workers and businesses that currently depend on high emissions of GHGs. The most immediate requirement is a phase-out of coal-fired energy generation in favour of cheaper and cleaner renewable generation and storage technologies, a process that has already started and needs to accelerate. similarly, any expansion of the gas industry is incompatible with achieving the Paris Agreement targets. Phasing out fossil fuels should be accompanied by electrification of transport, heating and industrial energy use. Significant opportunities also exist in making our homes and buildings more energy efficient. The emission reduction commitments of the Paris Agreement cannot be met without also managing emissions from the agricultural and land sectors, including stopping deforestation and increasing investment in restoration and carbon sequestration in soils… Australia lags far behind the best practice demonstrated by many countries. Given how much Australia stands to lose if GHG emissions are not reduced, we also recommend that Australia accelerates its transition to net zero GHG emissions over the next 10 to 20 years… Extreme events at 1.1°C of global warming are placing Australian lives and livelihoods at increasing risk, with concern that 3°C of global warming would not be sustainable. We also recommend a broad-ranging investigation of Australia’s readiness for meeting the growing number of climate-related disasters, such as droughts, fires, floods, storm surges, heat stress and ecological damage, that would occur with global temperature increases of 3°Cor more… Figure 1. Projected warming by 2100 under various scenarios… Baseline [inaction] 4.1-4.8°C… Current policies 2.7-3.1°C… Pledges & Targets 2.3-2.6°C… Optimistic net zero targets 2.1°C ” (Australian Academy of Science report, “The Risks To Australia of a 3°C Warmer World”, 31 March 2021: https://www.science.org.au/files/use rfiles/support/reports-and-plans/2021/risks-australia-three-deg-warmer-world-report.pdf ).
The Australian Climate Commission was an expert body established by the spin-driven Australian Labor Government (otherwise notorious for egregious climate change inaction) to provide all Australians with an independent and reliable source of information about the science of climate change, the international action being taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the economics of a carbon price (see: http://climatecommission.gov.au/ ).
Australian Climate Commission on 2013 Australia summer heatwave and excess deaths (2013): “The length, extent and severity of the current heatwave are unprecedented in the measurement record. Although Australia has always had heatwaves, hot days and bushfires, climate change is increasing the risk of more frequent and longer heatwaves and more extreme hot days, as well as exacerbating bushfire conditions. Climate change has contributed to making the current extreme heat conditions and bushfires worse. Good community understanding of climate change risks is critical to ensure we take appropriate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to put measures in place to prepare for, and respond to, extreme weather … During the severe heatwaves in southeastern Australia in 2009, Melbourne [Editor: 2011 population 4.1 million, Australian population 22.6 million], sweltered through three consecutive days at or above 43oC in late January. There were 980 deaths during this period – 374 more than the estimated 606 that would have occurred on average for that time of year, or an estimated increase of 62& (DHS, 2008) . Most of the increase was among people aged 75 or older.” [1].
[Editor: a recurrence of such a 3-day event on a nation-wide basis would cause an excess mortality of 374 x 22.6 million/4.1 million = 2,062 excess deaths, as compared to the annual Australian road toll (1,291 in 2011) and similar in magnitude the deaths on 9-11 (2,996)].
Australian Climate Commission on only 16 years left before we exceed the terminal budget (2013): “The budget approach shows that to have a 75% chance of staying within the 2oC limit , we can emit no more than 1,000 billion tonnes of CO2 from 2000 to mid-century. In the first 13 years of this period we have already emitted nearly 400 billion tonnes, about 40% of the total allowable budget (Figure 8). That leaves a budget of just over 500 billion tonnes of CO2 for the next 35-40 years, after which the world economy needs to be completely decarbonised. Worse yet, the rate at which we are spending the budget is still much too high, and is growing. For example, from 2011 to 2012, global CO2 emissions rose by 2.5%. Under a business-as-usual model, with emissions growing at 2.5% per annum, we are on track to have completely used up the allowable global emissions budget within the next 16 years, that is, by 2028.” [2].
[1]. Australian Climate Commission, “Off the charts: extreme Australian summer heat”, January 2013: http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/CC_Jan_2013_Heatwave4.pdf .
[2]. Australian Climate Commission, “The critical decade 2013: a summary of climate change science, risks and responses”, 2013, p7: http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/The-Critical-Decade-2013-Summary_lowres.pdf .
The Australian Climate Council is a privately-run group of climate scientists and economists who previously formed the government-funded Climate Commission that was sacked by the functionally climate change denialist, climate criminal, new Coalition Government in 2013 (see: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/australian-heatwaves-hotter-longer-climate-council ).
Australian Climate Council interim report on heat waves (defined as at least three consecutive days at a temperature in the top 10% for that time of year; SE Australia in January 2014 suffered one of its worst ever heatwaves with temperatures over 40C for days and peaking at 46C) (2014): “As greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, more heat is trapped in the lower atmosphere,” the report states. “This increases the likelihood that hot weather will occur and that heatwaves will become longer and more intense. It is crucial that communities, emergency services, health and medical services and other authorities prepare for the increases that are already occurring in the severity and frequency of many types of extreme weather. The south-east of Australia, including many of our largest population centres, stands out as being at increased risk from many extreme weather events – including heatwaves.” [1].
[1]. Oliver Milman, “Australian heatwaves getting hotter and longer, says Climate Council”, Guardian, 16 January 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/australian-heatwaves-hotter-longer-climate-council .
Australian Senate Inquiry into climate change and national security: “[Climate change is] a current and existential national security risk [that] threatens the premature extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the permanent and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future development” (quoted in Admiral Chris Barrie, Foreward, David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, “Existential climate-related security risk: a scenario approach”, Breakthrough – National Centre for Climate Restoration, May 2019: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_90dc2a2637f348edae45943a88da04d4.pdf ).
Dr John Avery (Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. Fellowships, Contact Person in Denmark for [Nobel Prize-awarded] Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (2015): “The island republic [of the Marshall Islands; RMI] is suing [in U.S. Federal Court.] the five `established' nuclear weapons states recognized in the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), the US, Russia (which inherited the Soviet arsenal), China, France and the UK, as well as the three countries outside the NPT who have declared nuclear arsenals ¨C India, Pakistan and North Korea, and the one undeclared nuclear weapons state, Israel.” The Republic of the Marshall Islands is not seeking monetary compensation, but instead it seeks to make the nuclear weapon states comply with their legal obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the 1996 ruling of the International Court of Justice… The RMI will appeal the U.S. attempt to reject its suit in the U.S, Federal Court, and it will continue to sue the 9 nuclear nations in the International Court of Justice. Whether or not the suits succeed in making the nuclear nations comply with international law, attention will be called to the fact the 9 countries are outlaws. In vote after vote in the United Nations General Assembly, the peoples of the world have shown how deeply they long to be free from the menace of nuclear weapons. Ultimately, the tiny group of power-hungry politicians must yield to the will of the citizens whom they are at present holding as hostages. It is a life-or-death question. We can see this most clearly when we look at far ahead. Suppose that each year there is a certain finite chance of a nuclear catastrophe, let us say 2 percent. Then in a century the chance of survival will be 13.5 percent, and in two centuries, 1.8 percent, in three centuries, 0.25 percent, in 4 centuries, there would only be a 0.034 percent chance of survival and so on. Over many centuries, the chance of survival would shrink almost to zero. Thus by looking at the long-term future, we can clearly see that if nuclear weapons are not entirely eliminated, civilization will not survive. Civil society must make its will felt. A thermonuclear war today would be not only genocidal but also omnicidal. It would kill people of all ages, babies, children, young people, mothers, fathers and grandparents, without any regard whatever for guilt or innocence. Such a war would be the ultimate ecological catastrophe, destroying not only human civilization but also much of the biosphere. Each of us has a duty to work with dedication to prevent it” (John Scales Avery, “Remember Your Humanity”, Countercurrents , 14 February, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/avery140215.htm ).
Dr John Avery (Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. Fellowships, Contact Person in Denmark for [Nobel Prize-awarded] Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs) on fossil fuel use and global climate emergency (2016): “In an amazing display of collective schizophrenia, our media treat oil production and the global climate emergency as though they were totally disconnected. But the use of all fossil fuels, including oil, must stop almost immediately if the world is to have a chance of avoiding uncontrollable and catastrophic climate change… Our high-energy lifestyles continue. Our profligate use of fossil fuels continues as though the life-threatening climate emergency did not exist. Meanwhile, early spring temperatures in 2016 have totally smashed all previous records, and this is especially pronounced in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Polar ice caps are melting in an alarmingly rapid and non-linear way. The rate of melting of the icecaps is far greater than predicted by conventional modeling which does not include feedback loops. Many island nations and coastal cities are threatened, not in the very distant future, but by the middle of our present century… In the long-term future, catastrophic anthropogenic climate change threatens to destroy human civilization and to drive the majority of plant and animal species into extinction. To prevent this from happening, we need to stop subsidising and accepting fossil fuel production. We need to vigorously support the transition to a sustainable economy based on renewable energy” (John Scales Avery, “Opec Oil And Climate Change”, Countercurrents, 18 April, 2016: http://www.countercurrents.org/avery180416.htm ).
John Scales Avery re the incident on 26 September, 1983 in which software engineer Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov deliberately rejected apparent evidence of a massive nuclear attack as a computer error (2018): “ The narrowness of this escape is compounded by the fact that Petrov was on duty only because of the illness of another officer with less knowledge of software, who would have accepted the alarm as real. Narrow escapes such as this show us clearly that in the long run, the combination of space-age science and stone-age politics will destroy us. We urgently need new political structures and new ethics to match our advanced technology. Modern science has, for the first time in history, offered humankind the possibility of a life of comfort, free from hunger and cold, and free from the constant threat of death through infectious disease. At the same time, science has given humans the power to obliterate their civilization with nuclear weapons, or to make the earth uninhabitable through overpopulation and pollution. The question of which of these paths we choose is literally a matter of life or death for ourselves and our children. Will we use the discoveries of modern science constructively, and thus choose the path leading towards life? Or will we use science to produce more and more lethal weapons, which sooner or later, through a technical or human failure, will result in a catastrophic nuclear war? Will we thoughtlessly destroy our beautiful planet through unlimited growth of population and industry? The choice among these alternatives is ours to make. We live at a critical moment of history, a moment of crisis for civilization. No one alive today asked to be born at a time of crisis, but history has given each of us an enormous responsibility… Today there are indications that the establishment is moving towards the point of view that the peace movement has always held: – that nuclear weapons are essentially genocidal, illegal and unworthy of civilization; and that they must be completely abolished as quickly as possible. There is a rapidly-growing global consensus that a nuclear-weapon-free world can and must be achieved in the very near future… Suppose that each year there is a certain finite chance of a nuclear catastrophe, let us say 2 percent. Then in a century the chance of survival will be 13.5 percent, and in two centuries, 1.8 percent, in three centuries, 0.25 percent, in 4 centuries, there would only be a 0.034 percent chance of survival and so on. Over many centuries, the chance of survival would shrink almost to zero” (John Scales Avery, “A World Federation”, Chapter 5, “Nuclear weapons as collective punishment”, Countercurrents, 11 December 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/12/11/a-world-federation-chapter-5-nuclear-weapons-as-collective-punishment/ ; John Scales Avery, “A World Federation”: http://eacpe.org/app/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-World-Federation-by-John-Scales-Avery.pdf ).
Admiral Chris Barrie (Honorary Professor, Strategic & Defence Studies Centre, Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, Australian National University, Canberra, a member of the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change and was Chief of the Australian Defence Force from 1998 to 2002) on the worsening climate emergency (2019): “In 2017-18, the Australian Senate inquired into the implications of climate change for Australia’s national security. The Inquiry found that climate change is “a current and existential national security risk”, one that “threatens the premature extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the permanent and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future development”. I told the Inquiry that, after nuclear war, human-induced global warming is the greatest threat to human life on the planet. Today’s 7.5 billion human beings are already the most predatory species that ever existed, yet the global population has yet to peak and may reach 10 billion people, with dire implications absent a fundamental change in human behaviour… A doomsday future is not inevitable! But without immediate drastic action our prospects are poor.” (Admiral Chris Barrie, Foreward, David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, “Existential climate-related security risk: a scenario approach”, Breakthrough – National Centre for Climate Restoration, May 2019: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_90dc2a2637f348edae45943a88da04d4.pdf ).
Glen Barry according to Rainforest Portal: “Dr. Glen Barry is an internationally recognized political ecologist, environmental advocate, writer, and technology expert. He is well-known within the environmental community as a leading global ecological visionary, public intellectual, and environmental policy critic. Dr. Barry's work as the President and Founder of Ecological Internet - the Earth's largest biocentric ecological advocacy web portals - was recently recognized as one of "25 Visionaries Who Are Changing Your World" by the Utne Reader. More: http://forests.org/staff/glen.asp “ (see: http://www.rainforestportal.org/issues/2013/02/earth_meanders_earth_is_dying.asp#more and http://forests.org/staff/glen.asp ).
Dr Glen Barry on biosphere collapse (2013): “Based upon an amazing landscape metric called "percolation," I hypothesize that a loss of more than 40 percent of terrestrial ecosystems long-term – including old-growth forests – collapses the biosphere. This is the point where critical deterioration in ecosystem connectivity occurs across scale, from landscapes to bioregions and continents, and on to the biosphere. Instead of humanity existing within a context of nature, ecosystems become fragmented, disconnected, and surrounded by humanity.
We are now at 50 percent natural ecosystem loss globally. I conclude that Earth needs to maintain some two-thirds of its land area as natural and seminatural ecosystems to meet local needs and to maintain local and global ecological sustainability. Along with a number of other planetary boundaries, including climate change and biodiversity loss, Earth is already in ecological overshoot and will collapse unless we pull back from the brink.” [1].
Dr Glenn Barry (ecologist and climate activist) (2016): “Climate policies matter. We have very few chances to get it right before abrupt climate change and related environmental and social issues collapse the biosphere. Yet the solutions being put forth by the leading climate activists—including Bill McKibben, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Klein, and Michael Brune—are woefully inadequate. In fact, their lack of ecological focus is dangerous and wrong, and virtually ensures failure in limiting global warming to an acceptable level… My own peer-reviewed ecological science research indicates that at 66% loss of natural ecosystems, the global biosphere percolates and loses critical connectivity required to sustain terrestrial ecosystems and thus the biosphere in the long-term. At least 50% has already been lost, indicating further that planetary ecological boundaries have been surpassed and we are living precariously in a state of ecological overshoot… I call upon Bill, Leo, Al, Naomi, and Mike to immediately support and begin working for a global ban on industrial scale old-growth forest logging and for widespread natural forest ecosystem restoration; and if not, to explicitly and specifically say why. Soon it will be too late. Otherwise each is a legitimate target for further protest as they continue their charlatan demagoguery hocking inadequate ecology-free climate solutions. And I implore the vast climate movement and its donors, that in crafting sufficient polices to limit abrupt climate change (and the myriad of related environmental and social crises threatening biosphere collapse), it is time for more ecologically inspired voices to be heard and supported ” [2].
[1]. Glen Barry, “Earth meanders: Earth is dying, yet climate and forest movements lack urgency and substance”, Rainforest portal, 24 February 2013: http://www.rainforestportal.org/issues/2013/02/earth_meanders_earth_is_dying.asp#more .
[2]. Dr Glenn Barry, “Bill McKibben’s ecology-free declaration of war on climate is dangerous and wrong”, EcoInternet, 28 August 2016: http://ecointernet.org/2016/08/28/bill-mckibbens-declaration-of-war-on-climate-is-dangerous-and-wrong/ .
Professor Richard Betts (UK Met Office) (2021): “The human-caused buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is accelerating. It took over 200 years for levels to increase by 25%, but now just over 30 years later we are approaching a 50% increase. Global emissions will need to be brought down to net zero within about the next 30 years if global warming is to be limited to 1.5C” (Damien Carrington, “Climate crisis: 2020 was joint hottest year ever recorded”, Guardian, 8 January 2021: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/08/climate-crisis-experts-2020-joint-hottest-year-ever-recorded?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=eca43984f1-briefing-dy-20210111&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-eca43984f1-44714333 ).
Professor Janusz W. Bialek is Professor of Electrical Engineering, Chair of Electrical Power and Control, University of Durham, UK (see: http://www.newstatesman.com/perspectives-on-energy/2011/10/carbon-government-professor ).
Professor Janusz Bialek in interview about tackling climate change and answering the question “Are we all doomed?” (2011): “ The human race has survived all kinds of crises. Necessity is the mother of invention, and people will come through with new solutions. We are an infinitely inventive race. Engineering solutions and technical solutions are easy. Getting political consensus is the big challenge.” [1].
[1]. Professor Janusz Bialek quoted in Samira Shackle, “ Q&A with Professor Jausz Bialek”, New Statesman, 17 October 2011: http://www.newstatesman.com/perspectives-on-energy/2011/10/carbon-government-professor .
Dr Fatih Birol (1958 Ankara, Turkey) is the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Director, Office of The Chief Economist, with overall responsibility for the organisation's economic analysis of energy and climate change policy. He oversees the annual World Energy Outlook series which is the flagship publication of the IEA and is recognized as an authoritative source for energy analysis and projections (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatih_Birol ) .
Dr Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency commenting on the IAE Report warning that if fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will 'lose for ever' the chance to avoid dangerous climate change (2011): "The door is closing. I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever… The shift away from nuclear worsens the situation." [1].
[1]. Dr Fatih Birol quoted by Fiona Harvey, “World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns”, The Guardian, 9 Novemberr 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change .
Outstanding socialist UK playwright Edward Bond (born 1934) wrote a contemporary version of King Lear ("Lear") and also exposed Shakespeare's actual complicity in 17th century attempts at Enclosures in his play "Bingo". Edward Bond wrote the screenplay for the iconic Australian film "Walkabout" and wrote the play "Saved" that was censored and banned in the UK - however an ABC Search of "the entire ABC" for "Edward Bond" merely brings up several reference to "Walkabout" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bond ).
Edward Bond in his Introduction to his play "Bingo": "I wrote "Bingo" because I think the contradictions in Shakespeare's life are similar to the contradictions in us. He was a "corrupt seer" and we are a "barbarous civilization". Because of that our society could destroy itself" [1]. [NB very prescient back in 1973: Google "Are we doomed?": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/are-we-doomed ].
[1]. Edward Bond, “Plays: Three. Bingo, The Fool, The Woman, Stone”, Methuen, London 1987.
Max Born (German physicist and mathematician who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics and won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1954) co-signed the Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with 10 other eminent scientists (all but 1 were or became Nobel Laureates) that called for “an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons” and concluded with the resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.” (The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955): http://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/ ).
Dr Jason Box is a Professor at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), a contributing author to the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 4th assessment report, and former Chair of the Cryosphere Focus Group of the American Geophysical Union (see: http://darksnow.org/author/jason/ ) .
Professor Jason Box (2014): “The NASA MODIS sensor on the Terra satellite provides surface reflectivity data since early 2000 enabling us to evaluate just how dark Greenland ice is today and in comparison with the past 14 years. The data show [graphs provided on 15 years of albedo data for the uppermost region of the Greenland ice sheet] that 2014 ice sheet reflectivity (also called albedo) has been near record low much of 2014, especially at the highest elevations. The darkness of the surface at high elevations is consistent with the findings of Dumont et al. (2014) that an increasing dust concentration on the ice sheet in the pre-melt season from decreasing snow cover on land upwind of the ice sheet may be a significant darkening factor.” [1].
[1]. Jason Box, “2014 Greenland ice sheet reflectivity near record low”, Dark Snow, 1 July 2014: http://darksnow.org/2014-ice-sheet-reflectivity-is-near-record-low/ .
Percy W. Bridgman (American physicist who won the 1946 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the physics of high pressures) co-signed the Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with 10 other eminent scientists (all but 1 were or became Nobel Laureates) that called for “an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons” and concluded with the resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.” (The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955): http://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/ ).
Oliver Broudy is a freelance writer living in New York (see: http://www.salon.com/2005/01/08/jared_diamond/ ).
Oliver Broudy on Lobbyocracy-based societal failure (2005): “I would think we’re doomed to failure, then, given how politics work in this country. Between the science and the policy there’s this ineradicable layer of money and lobbying.”
[1]. Oliver Broudy interviewing Professor Jared Diamond, author of “Collapse”, “Are we doomed?:, Salon, 9 January 2005: http://www.salon.com/2005/01/08/jared_diamond/ .
James Brown (ecologist, and a Distinguished Professor of Biology at the University of New Mexico) quoted by Professor Paul Ehrlich (2013): “Can humanity avoid a starvation-driven collapse? Yes, we can – though we currently put the odds at just 10 percent. As dismal as that sounds, we believe that, for the benefit of future generations, it is worth struggling to make it 11 percent. One of our most distinguished colleagues, biogeographer and energy expert James Brown of the University of New Mexico, disagrees. He puts the odds of sustaining human civilization at 1 percent, but thinks that it’s worth trying to increase it to 1.1 percent” (Paul R. Ehrlich “Famine threatens the very survival of human civilization” , The Daily Star, Lebanon, 16 March 2013: http://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Famine-Threatens-the-Very-Survival-of-Human-Civilization.pdf ).
Wenju Cai and 13 other colleagues (variously from Australian, UK, US, French, Australian and Chinese research institutions) on the increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming (2014): “El Niño events are a prominent feature of climate variability with global climatic impacts. The 1997/98 episode, often referred to as ‘the climate event of the twentieth century, and the 1982/83 extreme El Niño, featured a pronounced eastward extension of the west Pacific warm pool and development of atmospheric convection, and hence a huge rainfall increase, in the usually cold and dry equatorial eastern Pacific. Such a massive reorganization of atmospheric convection, which we define as an extreme El Niño, severely disrupted global weather patterns, affecting ecosystems, agriculture, tropical cyclones, drought, bushfires, floods and other extreme weather events worldwide. Potential future changes in such extreme El Niño occurrences could have profound socio-economic consequences. Here we present climate modelling evidence for a doubling in the occurrences in the future in response to greenhouse warming. We estimate the change by aggregating results from climate models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phases 3 (CMIP3) and 5 (CMIP5) multi-model databases, and a perturbed physics ensemble. The increased frequency arises from a projected surface warming over the eastern equatorial Pacific that occurs faster than in the surrounding ocean waters, facilitating more occurrences of atmospheric convection in the eastern equatorial region.” [1].
A report on this discovery in The Guardian summarized this research paper as follows (2014): “The world's most devastating global weather phenomenon – the weather events associated with "El Niño" – will double in frequency to once a decade if global warming remains unchecked, according to what scientists believe is a major step forward in the understanding of such events. The last extreme El Niño, in 1997-98, resulted in the hottest year on record, and the accompanying floods, cyclones, droughts and wildfires killed an estimated 23,000 people and caused £21bn-£28bn in damage, particularly to food production. But until now scientists have been unable to agree how climate change will affect the frequency of extreme El Niños. A study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, concludes that in stark contrast to earlier work, the current rate of carbon emissions would mean twice as many extreme El Niños over the next 100 years, with profound socioeconomic consequences. [2]
[1]. Wenju Cai et al , “Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming”, Nature Climate Change, January 2014: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2100.html .
[2]. Damian Carrington, “”, Guardian, “Unchecked global warming will double extreme El Niño weather events”, The Guardian, 20 January 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/19/unchecked-global-warming-double-el-nino-weather .
Albert Camus (French existentialist author and Nobel Laureate) re the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945): “Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests. Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging. This is no longer a prayer, but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments – a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason” (Albert Camus quoted in John Scales Avery, “A World Federation”, Chapter 5, “Nuclear weapons as collective punishment”, Countercurrents, 11 December 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/12/11/a-world-federation-chapter-5-nuclear-weapons-as-collective-punishment/ ; John Scales Avery, “A World Federation”: http://eacpe.org/app/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-World-Federation-by-John-Scales-Avery.pdf ).
Pep Canadell (Global Carbon Project executive director at CSIRO, Australia) (2012): “The 2012 global carbon emission summary released today shows an ever-widening gap between rising emissions and the steps necessary to keep global temperatures within the generally agreed – but increasingly difficult – 2°C safe limit above pre-industrial levels. The summary, published in Nature Climate Change and generated by the Global Carbon Project, clearly illustrates the fact that the necessary reductions in carbon dioxide emissions are becoming a receding goal. Carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere are set to reach 36 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide this year, which is 58% above 1990. Growth rates of about 3% per year have been the norm since the beginning of the 2000s, except for a small drop in emissions during the Global Financial Crisis in 2009. Average annual growth rates in the decade of the 1990s were around 1%. When current trends are aligned to the emission scenarios used to project future climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is clear that limiting global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels requires an immediate, large, and sustained global mitigation effort… Emissions trends over the past ten years are tracking consistently with the most carbon-intensive pathways of the four families of [IPCC] scenarios, leading to 4 to 6°C warming over pre-industrial times by the end of this century.” [1].
[1]. Pep Canadell,“The widening gap between present emissions and the two-degree target”, The Conversation, 3 December 2012: http://theconversation.edu.au/the-widening-gap-between-present-emissions-and-the-two-degree-target-11101 .
NB. The research quoted in the article is based on the release of an extensive new dataset by the Global Carbon Project published simultaneously in Nature Climate Change and in the journal of Earth System Science Data Discussions on 3 December 2012.
“The mitigation challenge to stay below two degrees” by G.P. Peters, R.M. Andrew, T. Boden, J.G. Canadell, P. Ciais, C. Le Quéré, G. Marland, M.R. Raupach, C. Wilson is published online by Nature Climate Change, 3 December 2012.
“The Global Carbon Budget 1959–2011” by C. Le Quéré, R. J. Andres, T. Boden, T. Conway, R. A. Houghton, J. I. House, G. Marland, G. P. Peters, G. van der Werf, A. Ahlström, R. M. Andrew, L. Bopp, J. G. Canadell, P. Ciais, S. C. Doney, P. Friedlingstein, C. Huntingford, A. K. Jain, C. Jourdain, E. Kato, R. Keeling, S. Levis, P. Levy, M. Lomas, B. Poulter, M. Raupach, J. Schwinger, S. Sitch, B. D. Stocker, N. Viovy, S. Zaehle and N. Zeng, is online by Earth System Science Data Discussions ([ http://www.earth-system-science-data.net/ ]( http://www.earth-system-science-data.net/ "")), 3 December 2012.
GCP homepage provides all datasets, data summaries, and papers supporting the Carbon Budget 2012 release - http://www.globalcarbonproject.org
Damien Carrington (UK Guardian environment reporter) (2021): “Climate crisis: 2020 was joint hottest year ever recorded. Global heating continued unabated despite Covid lockdowns, with record Arctic wildfires and Atlantic tropical storms… The Arctic and northern Siberia saw particularly extreme average temperatures in 2020, with a large region 3C higher than the long-term average… The climate crisis continued unabated in 2020, with the joint highest global temperatures on record, alarming heat and record wildfires in the Arctic, and a record 29 tropical storms in the Atlantic. Despite a 7% fall in fossil fuel burning due to coronavirus lockdowns, heat-trapping carbon dioxide continued to build up in the atmosphere, also setting a new record. The average surface temperature across the planet in 2020 was 1.25C higher than in the pre-industrial period of 1850-1900, dangerously close to the 1.5C target set by the world’s nations to avoid the worst impacts. Scientists have warned that without urgent action the future for many millions of people “looks black”. The temperature data released by the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) showed that the past six years have been the hottest six on record. They also showed that Europe saw its hottest year on record, 1.6C above the long-term average, with a searing heatwave hitting western Europe in late July and early August” (Damien Carrington, “Climate crisis: 2020 was joint hottest year ever recorded”, Guardian, 8 January 2021: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/08/climate-crisis-experts-2020-joint-hottest-year-ever-recorded?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=eca43984f1-briefing-dy-20210111&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-eca43984f1-44714333 ).
Professor Noam Chomsky (anti-racist Jewish American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, political activist, author of over 100 books, social critic, and Professor Emeritus at the 93-Nobel-Laureate Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)) (2018): “The most striking features [2018 US mid-term elections] are brutally clear. Humanity faces two imminent existential threats: environmental catastrophe and nuclear war. These were virtually ignored in the campaign rhetoric and general coverage. There was plenty of criticism of the Trump administration, but scarcely a word about by far the most ominous positions the administration has taken: increasing the already dire threat of nuclear war, and racing to destroy the physical environment that organized human society needs in order to survive. These are the most critical and urgent questions that have arisen in all of human history. The fact that they scarcely arose in the campaign is truly stunning — and carries some important, if unpleasant, lessons about our moral and intellectual culture… Several states had important ballot initiatives addressing the impending environmental catastrophe. The fossil fuel industry spent huge, sometimes record-breaking, sums to defeat the initiatives — including a carbon tax in the mostly Democratic state of Washington — and mostly succeeded. We should recognize that these are extraordinary crimes against humanity. They proceed with little notice… The concentration of wealth and enhancement of corporate power translate automatically to decline of democracy. Research in academic political science has revealed that a large majority of voters are literally disenfranchised, in that their own representatives pay no attention to their wishes but listen to the voices of the donor class…” (C.J. Polychroniou, “Moral depravity defines U.S. politics”, Truthout, 21 November 2018: https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-moral-depravity-defines-us-politics/
[Editor: Famed theoretical physicist and cosmologist Professor Stephen Hawking of the 118-Nobel-Laureate University of Cambridge, and a member of board of sponsors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2007): “We foresee great peril if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change” ( Will Dunham, “Nuclear, climate perils push Doomsday Clock ahead”, Reuters, 22 January 2007: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN17314370 ) ].
According to Wikipedia: “ Dr. John A. Church (born 1951) is an expert on sea level and its changes, He was Co-convening Lead Author (with Jonathan M. Gregory) for the Chapter on Sea Level in the IPCC Third Assessment Report and a member of the Joint Scientific Committee of the WCRP [World Climate Research Program] . He is currently a project leader at CSIRO” (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Church ).
John Church et al on global sea level rise, ice melting and remorselessly increasing global heat content (2011): “We review the sea-level and energy budgets together from 1961, using recent and updated estimates of all terms. From 1972 to 2008, the observed sea-level rise (1.8 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 from tide gauges alone and 2.1 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 from a combination of tide gauges and altimeter observations) agrees well with the sum of contributions (1.8 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) in magnitude and with both having similar increases in the rate of rise during the period. The largest contributions come from ocean thermal expansion (0.8 mm yr−1) and the melting of glaciers and ice caps (0.7 mm yr−1), with Greenland and Antarctica contributing about 0.4 mm yr−1. The cryospheric contributions increase through the period (particularly in the 1990s) but the thermosteric contribution increases less rapidly. We include an improved estimate of aquifer depletion (0.3 mm yr−1), partially offsetting the retention of water in dams and giving a total terrestrial storage contribution of −0.1 mm yr−1. Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth's energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing. The aerosol forcing, inferred as a residual in the atmospheric energy balance, is estimated as −0.8 ± 0.4 W m−2 for the 1980s and early 1990s. It increases in the late 1990s, as is required for consistency with little surface warming over the last decade. This increase is likely at least partially related to substantial increases in aerosol emissions from developing nations and moderate volcanic activity.”
[1]. John Church et al, “Revisiting the Earth’s sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008”, Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 38, Issue 18, 28 September 2011: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048794/abstract .
Climate Science For Sceptics (2019): “Unfortunately, at the current rate of increase you can easily see that without urgent action we are likely to reach the 2 degree rise around mid-century. Indeed, many scientists say that it may already be too late to avoid a 2 degree rise, much less a 1.5 degree rise because of the lag between CO2 and temperature rise…
So as the oceans warm a little, the dissolved CO2 starts to come out of the ocean into the atmosphere - raising the concentration as the blue lines in the graph above show. Now this extra CO2 in the atmosphere is a strong greenhouse gas and so the atmosphere warms further - releasing yet more CO2 from the ocean. More water vapour is evaporated as well, adding further to the [positive feedback] effect. And so it goes on. Well fortunately not forever! (Note: It DID go on forever on Venus and that's why its average temperature is something like 450 degrees! But Venus is closer to the Sun and that's why things got out of control.) Fortunately, as water vapour builds up in the atmosphere, clouds are more able to form and they reflect sunlight and that provides a negative feedback which eventually slows the warming. As well, by the time the warming becomes significant the Milankovitch cycles tend to reverse and so cool things again. (In fact that's why the Earth would be cooling toward another ice age now if it weren't for the extra CO2 we have put in the atmosphere)…
The Earth is huge and takes a long time to warm up or cool down, so even with the rapid increase in the greenhouse effect it can't respond very quickly. It will take many decades for the temperature of the Earth to 'catch up' with the extra warming already locked in by the CO2 levels we now have. In other words, there is a significant time lag involved as the warming catches up with the CO2 level. Or as it is sometimes put, there is a built in warming already in the system that we can't avoid, even if we were to stop adding more CO2 today. This is what the scientists try to calculate with their computer models. Many think that in order to avoid a two degree rise (and certainly a 1.5 degree rise) we will not only have to urgently stop producing CO2, but we probably will have to reduce the amount in the atmosphere somehow - and that will not be easy or risk free - anything but. And VERY expensive…
So, to imagine that somehow the extra roughly 20 billion tonnes of CO2 that are appearing in the atmosphere every year is not the result of the approximately 40 billion tonnes or so that we are putting into the atmosphere every year by burning fossil fuels really does beggar belief. The science is very clear. And of course most of the other half of the 40 billion tonnes is going into the ocean - making it more acidic and thus threatening ocean life and coral reefs. (Strictly speaking it is making the ocean 'less alkaline' - but it amounts to the same thing and has the same effect.) So to sum up, there is no serious scientific doubt that our climate is changing and it is the result of our use of fossil fuels. The next question then is "Does it matter?" From what we have seen above, clearly we have to expect warmer climates and rising seas. And clearly these changes will be something not experienced by the Earth for well over a million years. There is then, every reason to believe that, yes, it will matter” (Climate Science For Sceptics, “Is our climate changing ? and Why?”, 2019: http://www.cs4s.net/climate-2.html ).
World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, April 22nd, Cochabamba, Bolivia, PEOPLE’S AGREEMENT:
“Today, our Mother Earth is wounded and the future of humanity is in danger.
If global warming increases by more than 2 degrees Celsius, a situation that the “Copenhagen Accord” could lead to, there is a 50% probability that the damages caused to our Mother Earth will be completely irreversible. Between 20% and 30% of species would be in danger of disappearing. Large extensions of forest would be affected, droughts and floods would affect different regions of the planet, deserts would expand, and the melting of the polar ice caps and the glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas would worsen. Many island states would disappear, and Africa would suffer an increase in temperature of more than 3 degrees Celsius. Likewise, the production of food would diminish in the world, causing catastrophic impact on the survival of inhabitants from vast regions in the planet, and the number of people in the world suffering from hunger would increase dramatically, a figure that already exceeds 1.02 billion people. The corporations and governments of the so-called “developed” countries, in complicity with a segment of the scientific community, have led us to discuss climate change as a problem limited to the rise in temperature without questioning the cause, which is the capitalist system.
We confront the terminal crisis of a civilizing model that is patriarchal and based on the submission and destruction of human beings and nature that accelerated since the industrial revolution. The capitalist system has imposed on us a logic of competition, progress and limitless growth. This regime of production and consumption seeks profit without limits, separating human beings from nature and imposing a logic of domination upon nature, transforming everything into commodities: water, earth, the human genome, ancestral cultures, biodiversity, justice, ethics, the rights of peoples, and life itself. Under capitalism, Mother Earth is converted into a source of raw materials, and human beings into consumers and a means of production, into people that are seen as valuable only for what they own, and not for what they are. Capitalism requires a powerful military industry for its processes of accumulation and imposition of control over territories and natural resources, suppressing the resistance of the peoples. It is an imperialist system of colonization of the planet. Humanity confronts a great dilemma: to continue on the path of capitalism, depredation, and death, or to choose the path of harmony with nature and respect for life…” [1].
John Cook researches at the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia and is the Australian creator of Skeptical Science which according to Wikipedia: “ Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook. In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments commonly put forth by those involved in the global warming controversy who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change” (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science ). .Skeptical Science has a convenient summation of the debunking of about 10 major incorrect climate skeptic assertions about man-made climate change (see: https://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html ).
John Cook, Australian climate researcher creator of Skeptical Science, has analyzed the remorselessly increasing total heat content of the Earth, whether (a) ocean content or (2) land, air and ice melting heat content [see graphs]: “Last weekend, I gave a talk at the Climate Action Summit on the latest climate science. During the talk, I showed the following graph of the Earth's total heat content, demonstrating that even over the last decade when surface temperature warming has slowed somewhat, the planet continues to build up heat at a rate of 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations worth of heat every second. This data comes from a paper lead authored by Australian climate scientist John Church that tallies up the heat accumulating in the oceans, warming the land and atmosphere and melting the ice:.. As this figure shows, there has been no significant slowing in global heat accumulation, contrary to the mythical 'global warming pause'. So, how do we come up with 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonation equivalents per second from this data? The slope of the global heat accumulation graph tells us how rapidly the Earth's climate is building up heat. Over the past decade, the rate is 8 x 1021 Joules per year, or 2.5 x 1014 Joules per second. The yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3 x 1013 Joules, hence the rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That's nearly 2 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, when we're told global warming supposedly 'paused'. That has to be the worst pause ever. The data used in Nuccitelli et al. (2012) are now available for download so you can check it out for yourself.” [1].
[1]. John Cook, “[Global warming] 4 Hiroshima bomb’s worth of heat per second ”. Skeptical Science, 1 July 2013: https://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html .
The summary of the paper “Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation” published by Joeri Rogelj et al in the prestigious journal Nature (January 2013): “For more than a decade, the target of keeping global warming below 2°C has been a key focus of the international climate debate1. In response, the scientific community has published a number of scenario studies that estimate the costs of achieving such a target. Producing these estimates remains a challenge, particularly because of relatively well known, but poorly quantified, uncertainties, and owing to limited integration of scientific knowledge across disciplines6. The integrated assessment community, on the one hand, has extensively assessed the influence of technological and socio-economic uncertainties on low-carbon scenarios and associated costs. The climate modelling community, on the other hand, has spent years improving its understanding of the geophysical response of the Earth system to emissions of greenhouse gases. This geophysical response remains a key uncertainty in the cost of mitigation scenarios but has been integrated with assessments of other uncertainties in only a rudimentary manner, that is, for equilibrium conditions. . Here we bridge this gap between the two research communities by generating distributions of the costs associated with limiting transient global temperature increase to below specific values, taking into account uncertainties in four factors: geophysical, technological, social and political. We find that political choices that delay mitigation have the largest effect on the cost–risk distribution, followed by geophysical uncertainties, social factors influencing future energy demand and, lastly, technological uncertainties surrounding the availability of greenhouse gas mitigation options. Our information on temperature risk and mitigation costs provides crucial information for policy-making, because it clarifies the relative importance of mitigation costs, energy demand and the timing of global action in reducing the risk of exceeding a global temperature increase of 2°C, or other limits such as 3°C or 1.5°C, across a wide range of scenarios.”
Figure 3 of the paper is entitled “Cost-risk distribution for returning global temperature increase to below 1.5oC by 2100” and provides sigmoidal plots of “Probability (P) of returning global temperature increase to below 1.5oC by 2100” versus carbon price over a range of US$0-$1,000/tonne CO2-e in various scenarios of low, intermediate and high future energy demand (i.e. with increasing political climate change inaction). Even with high political action and low future energy demand, P is only about 60% at a 2012 carbon price of US$100/tonne CO2-e and increasing the carbon price to US41,000/tonne CO2-e has little effect on P with the sigmoidal functions obtained in which P flattens out above US$100/tonne CO2-e. [1].
The message is that urgent action to curb greenhouse gas pollution is required NOW if we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding a catastrophic temperature rise. The World is rapidly running out of time for effective climate change action (see “Are we doomed?”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/are-we-doomed and “2011 and “2011Climate Change Course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course ).
[1]. Joeri Rogelj, David L. McCollum, Andy Reisinger, Malte Meinshausen & Keywan Riahi, “Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation” , Nature 493, 79–83, 3 January 2013: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7430/full/nature11787.html .
Dr Brian Cox and Dr Jeff Forshaw are UK physicists who co-authored the book “The Quantum Universe” (see: http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2011/12/interview-science-cox-physics ).
Dr Brian Cox and Dr Jeff Forshaw interviewed by Helen Lewis-Hasteley for the UK New Statesman (8 December 2011):
HL-H: How much of a responsibility do you feel to be an advocate for science generally?
BC: A lot. I think the peer-review process is the best way we have of giving our best view on how nature works. There are no absolute truths in science. Take a so-called controversy such as climate change: the correct thing to say is that we make measurements of the climate, we look at the data, we model it and here are a range of predictions. While it's easy to point out the flaws, in general it's unarguable that science works. . . because we're not in fucking caves!
HL-H: What motivates climate sceptics and the rest?
BC: Carl Sagan pointed out that "Science challenges". And the natural human response from people who are educated, who have a title or position, is to assume their opinion is worth something. And science tells you that your opinion is worthless when confronted with the evidence. That's a difficult thing to learn. When you look back at the Greeks or Romans and think, "Why didn't they get science?", maybe it was that.
JF: As a theoretical physicist, most of my time is spent doing calculations that are wrong. It's a humbling exercise, a massive dose of humility.
…
HL-H: Are we all doomed?
JF: The only thing that will save us is fundamental physics, because we have to escape to a distant part of the universe.
BC: On the human timescale, the adoption of the scientific method - making rational decisions based on evidence - that's the important thing. Look at public policy, health policy, economics: there's a reluctance to be humble.” [1].
[1]. Dr Brian Cox and Dr Jeff Forshaw interviewed by Helen Lewis-Hasteley for the UK New Statesman, “Science tells you that your opinion is worthless. That’s difficult”, UK New Statesman, 8 December 2011: http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2011/12/interview-science-cox-physics .
Nathan Curry is an American writer.
Nathan Curry (2013): “Recent data seems to suggest that we may have already tripped several irrevocable, nonlinear, positive feedback loops—permafrost is melting, arctic ice is falling into the sea—and an average global temperature increase of only 2°C by 2100, which has long been a target of the UN and climate scientists, seems like a fairy tale. Instead, we’re talking 4°C, 6°C, 10°C, 16°C (your guess is as good as mine) here.
The link between rapid climate change and human extinction is basically this: the planet becomes uninhabitable by humans if the average temperature goes up by 4° to 6°C. That doesn’t sound like a lot because we’re used to the temperature changing 15°C overnight, but even a 2° to 3°C average increase would give us temperatures that would regularly surpass 40°C (104°F) in North America and Europe, and soar even higher near the equator. Human bodies start to break down after six hours at a wet-bulb (100 percent humidity) temperature of 35°C (95°F). This makes the 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed over 70,000 people seem like not a very big deal.
Factoring in the increase we’re already seeing in heat waves, droughts, wildfires, massive storms, food and water shortages, deforestation, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise some are seeing the writing on the wall:
We’re all gonna die!” [1].
[1]. Nathan Curry, “Humanity I getting verrrrrry close to extinction:”, VICE, August 2013: http://www.vice.com/read/near-term-extinctionists-believe-the-world-is-going-to-end-very-soon .
DARA in its own words: “Founded in 2003 by Silvia Hidalgo, DARA is an independent organisation committed to improving the quality and effectiveness of aid for vulnerable populations suffering from conflict, disasters and climate change. DARA has recognised expertise in providing support in the field of humanitarian aid as well as climate change, disaster and risk reduction. We have conducted evaluations of humanitarian operations in over 40 countries across five continents for a variety of government, United Nations and European Union agencies as well as major international organisations, including the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement. Working with partners, DARA actively promotes humanitarian principles and best practice; provides quality analysis and evaluation of humanitarian interventions and monitors the human impact of climate change around the world. By evaluating impact and providing policy guidance and solutions, DARA works to improve aid effectiveness” (see: http://daraint.org/about-us/ ).
DARA 2012 Report commissioned by 20 countries: “This report estimates that climate change causes 400,000 deaths on average each year today, mainly due to hunger and communicable diseases that affect above all children in developing countries. Our present carbon-intensive energy system and related activities cause an estimates 4.5 million deaths each year linked to air pollution , hazardous occupations and cancer. Climate changed caused economic losses estimated close to 1% of global GDP for the year 2010, or 700 billion dollars (2010, PPP).. The carbon-intensive economy cost the world another 0.7% of GDP in that year, independent of any climate change losses. Together, carbon economy- and climate change-related losses amounted to over 1.2 trillion dollars.
The world is already committed to a substantial increase in global temperatures – at least another 0.5oC (1oF) due to a combination of the inertia of the world’s oceans, the slow response of the carbon cycle to reduced CO2 emission and limitation on how fast emissions can actually be reduced. The world economy therefore faces an increase in pressures that are estimated to lead to more than a doubling in the costs of climate change by 2030 to an estimated 2.5% of global GDP. Carbon economy costs also increase over this same period so that global GDP in 2030 is estimated to be well over 3% lower than it would have been in the absence of climate change and harmful carbon-intensive energy practices. Continuing today’s patterns of carbon-intensive energy use is estimated, together with climate change, to cause 5 million deaths per year by 2030, close to 700,000 of which would be due to climate change. This implies that a combined climate-carbon crisis is estimated to claim 100 million lives between now and the end of the next decade. A significant share of the global population would be directly affected by inaction on climate change” [1, 2].
[1]. DARA, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor. A guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet”, 2012, Executive Summary pp2-3: http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/ .
[2]. DARA report quoted by Reuters, ”100 mln to die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate”, 28 September 2012: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/climate-inaction-idINDEE88P05P20120926 .
Tony de Brum (Marshall Islands foreign minister (2015): “Displacement of populations and destruction of cultural language and tradition is equivalent in our minds to genocide. People must know that climate change can be reversed if we do it now. But if we do not of irreversible damage or and even catastrophic ending of civilisation as we know it” (Tony de Brum quoted in “Marshalls likens climate change to cultural genocide”, Radio New Zealand, 6 October 2015: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/pacific/286139/marshalls-likens-climate-change-migration-to-cultural-genocide
Jared Diamond is an American physiologist, ecologist and ornithologist, Professor of Geography at the University of California, Los Angeles and a best-selling author best known for his science-society interface books “The Third Chimpanzee”, “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, “Collapse” and “The World Until Yesterday” (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond ). .
Jared Diamond in answer to the question “Can we hope to develop a better relationship between science and policy? (2005): “ We have to be able to do what you say. One way to think of it is to ask ourselves what science means. Science is simply accurate knowledge of the real world. It’s not laboratory experiments, not always. Like tsunamis. You don’t do laboratory experiments on tsunamis, but if you want to deal successfully in the world you have to have accurate knowledge of the real world; that’s what science is. So if you don’t have a straight pipeline from knowledge of the world to fixing the world you are doomed to failure.”
Jared Diamond on “The two traditional American values that I think — that I know — have to be discarded are, first, unbridled consumerism resulting from our sense of being in a land of unlimited resources… And the other long-held American value is the value derived from the United States’ relative isolation. We’re not isolated anymore. We have to engage with the rest of the world — not in order to be charitable to them but for our own self-interest. It’s much cheaper to put a few tens of billions of dollars into world programs for public health and environment than to throw $150 billion into Iraq and $100 billion into Afghanistan, when there are about 20 other countries waiting to become the next Iraq and Afghanistan. We can’t afford it.” [1].
Jared Diamond on the need to halt consumerism (2005): “Now, as for us, what’s going to replace consumerism will be the recognition that we have to live within our means, that we’re part of the whole world, and that consumerism simply is no longer viable if we want to make a world that’s going to make sense for our children. We have to live in such a way that we pass on a worthwhile world to our children. And that’s a wonderful ideal that can replace consumerism, that will have to replace consumerism.” [1].
[1]. Professor Jared Diamond interviewed by Oliver Broudy, “Are we doomed?:, Salon, 9 January 2005: http://www.salon.com/2005/01/08/jared_diamond/ .
Dr Richard Dixon, Head of World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Scotland, has a BSc and PhD in Astrophysics, and an MSc in Energy Systems and Environment Management from Glasgow Caledonian University. Before joining WWF Scotland, he worked for Community Service Volunteers and Strathclyde Regional Council, and was Head of Research at Friends of the Earth Scotland. During his eight years at the latter, he worked on issues as diverse as climate change and fish farming. He helped to treble the number of Scottish beaches officially recognised by the government and wrote the first comprehensive report on air pollution in Scotland (see: http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/press_centre/spokespeople/head_of_wwf_scotland.cfm ).
Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, re the huge melting of Arctic sea ice and the need for action over man-made climate change (2012): “This is not unexpected but it is extremely bad news. These satellite images show what we are doing to the planet and while climate change has gone off the political agenda recently, things have got worse and governments and big business must do more to fix that… Polar ice shapes the weather systems in Scotland and the north-west of Europe, and sea ice loss is one reason why we’re getting colder summers and have had very cold winters in the last few years.”
Dr Richard Dixon quoted in Julia Horton, “Arctic sea ice will vanish within three years, says expert ”, Scotsman, 29 August 2012: http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/arctic-sea-ice-will-vanish-within-three-years-says-expert-1-2493681 .
M. Dumont et al. (French glaciologists and climate change scientists) (2014): “The surface energy balance and mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet depends on the albedo of snow, which governs the amount of solar energy that is absorbed. The observed decline of Greenland’s albedo over the past decade1, 2, 3 has been attributed to an enhanced growth of snow grains as a result of atmospheric warming1, 2. Satellite observations show that, since 2009, albedo values even in springtime at high elevations have been lower than the 2003–2008 average. Here we show, using a numerical snow model, that the decrease in albedo cannot be attributed solely to grain growth enhancement. Instead, our analysis of remote sensing data indicates that the springtime darkening since 2009 stems from a widespread increase in the amount of light-absorbing impurities in snow, as well as in the atmosphere. We suggest that the transport of dust from snow-free areas in the Arctic that are experiencing earlier melting of seasonal snow cover4 as the climate warms may be a contributing source of impurities. In our snow model simulations, a decrease in the albedo of fresh snow by 0.01 leads to a surface mass loss of 27 Gt yr−1, which could induce an acceleration of Greenland’s mass loss twice as large as over the past two decades5. Future trends in light-absorbing impurities should therefore be considered in projections of Greenland mass loss.” [1].
[1]. M. Dumont et al., “Contribution of light-absorbing impurities in snow to Greenland’s darkening since 2009”, Nature Geoscience, 7, 509–512 (2014): http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n7/full/ngeo2180.html .
Ian Dunlop (leading Australian business man and climate change activist) and David Spratt (leading Australian climate change activist (2017): “The first responsibility of a government is to safeguard the people and their future well-being. The ability to do this is threatened by climate change, whose accelerating impacts will also drive political instability and conflict, posing large negative consequences to human society which may never be undone. This report looks at climate change and conflict issues through the lens of sensible risk management to draw new conclusions about the challenge we now face.
• From tropical coral reefs to the polar ice sheets, global warming is already dangerous. The world is perilously close to, or passed, tipping points which will create major changes in global climate systems.
• The world now faces existential climate-change risks which may result in “outright chaos” and an end to human civilisation as we know it.
• These risks are either not understood or wilfully ignored across the public and private sectors, with very few exceptions.
•Global warming will drive increasingly severe humanitarian crises, forced migration, political instability and conflict. The Asia Pacific region, including Australia, is considered to be “Disaster Alley” where some of the worst impacts will be experienced.
• Building more resilient communities in the most vulnerable nations by high level financial commitments and development assistance can help protect peoples in climate hotspots and zones of potential instability and conflict.
• Australia’s political, bureaucratic and corporate leaders are abrogating their fiduciary responsibilities to safeguard the people and their future well-being. They are ill-prepared for the real risks
of climate change at home and in the region.
•The Australian government must ensure Australian Defence Force and emergency services preparedness, mission and operational resilience, and capacity for humanitarian aid and disaster relief, across the full range of projected climate change scenarios.
• It is essential to now strongly advocate a global climate emergency response, and to build a national leadership group outside conventional politics to design and implement emergency decarbonisation of the Australian economy. This would adopt all available safe solutions using sound, existential risk-management practices” (Ian Dunlop and David Spratt, “Disaster Alley climate change conflict & risk”, Breakthrough, 2017: https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2017/06/20/ACFrOgDkCYAvFeJ9d4YxhOlZiOHNkTOnWbkhlY_dX8kl_O3ChbGcEmWsbUNrOnJUwE4SNWFvzB7RM6w4GsF0pDwdnREIip-k5J-03TQc0Op4FWrsNcZpjXAuy7NNJ_Y=.pdf ).
DYNAMIC SMALL BUSINESS NETWORK (DSBN). Dynamic Small Business Network (DSBN), Victoria, Australia: “Yes, Global Warming is real and is caused by humans. We need to get used to it .We will have more droughts, more fires and more extreme weather events. We can slow it down but we can't prevent it now. Some business sectors will be more affected than others. All our businesses need to build in planning to cope with less water, less predictable power and more extreme weather. And most importantly we need to think about what impact we have and how we can reduce this. Many office based businesses don’t believe they are having much impact BUT figures from Victoria show that 30% of greenhouse gas emissions in that State come from the office sector. Offices are typically open eight hours a day and shut for sixteen but they cheerily release greenhouse gasses for all 24 hours… This information has come from many sources but the latest is the report, Climate Change in Australia, which contains the most detailed and up-to-date climate projections produced by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology” (Dynamic Small Business Network, “Too late to avoid warming”: http://www.dsbn.com.au/Articles/too-late-avoid-warming ).
Paul Ehrlich is a Professor of Biology and President of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, and Adjunct Professor at the University of Technology, Sydney. His research interests are in the ecology and evolution of natural populations of butterflies, reef fishes, birds and human beings. Anne Ehrlich is a Senior Research Scientist in Biology at Stanford and focuses her research on policy issues related to the environment. (see: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full .)
Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich (2013): “Abstract: Environmental problems have contributed to numerous collapses of civilizations in the past. Now, for the first time, a global collapse appears likely. Overpopulation, overconsumption by the rich and poor choices of technologies are major drivers; dramatic cultural change provides the main hope of averting calamity…
But today, for the first time, humanity's global civilization—the worldwide, increasingly interconnected, highly technological society in which we all are to one degree or another, embedded—is threatened with collapse by an array of environmental problems. Humankind finds itself engaged in what Prince Charles described as ‘an act of suicide on a grand scale’ [4], facing what the UK's Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington called a ‘perfect storm’ of environmental problems [5]. The most serious of these problems show signs of rapidly escalating severity, especially climate disruption. But other elements could potentially also contribute to a collapse: an accelerating extinction of animal and plant populations and species, which could lead to a loss of ecosystem services essential for human survival; land degradation and land-use change; a pole-to-pole spread of toxic compounds; ocean acidification and eutrophication (dead zones); worsening of some aspects of the epidemiological environment (factors that make human populations susceptible to infectious diseases); depletion of increasingly scarce resources [6,7], including especially groundwater, which is being overexploited in many key agricultural areas [8]; and resource wars [9]. These are not separate problems; rather they interact in two gigantic complex adaptive systems: the biosphere system and the human socio-economic system. The negative manifestations of these interactions are often referred to as ‘the human predicament’ [10], and determining how to prevent it from generating a global collapse is perhaps the foremost challenge confronting humanity. The human predicament is driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens’ aggregate consumption [11–17]….
Conclusions. Do we think global society can avoid a collapse in this century? The answer is yes, because modern society has shown some capacity to deal with long-term threats, at least if they are obvious or continuously brought to attention (think of the risks of nuclear conflict). Humanity has the assets to get the job done, but the odds of avoiding collapse seem small because the risks are clearly not obvious to most people and the classic signs of impending collapse, especially diminishing returns to complexity [28], are everywhere. One central psychological barrier to taking dramatic action is the distribution of costs and benefits through time: the costs up front, the benefits accruing largely to unknown people in the future. But whether we or more optimistic observers [17,163] are correct, our own ethical values compel us to think the benefits to those future generations are worth struggling for, to increase at least slightly the chances of avoiding a dissolution of today's global civilization as we know it.” [1].
Paul Ehrlich (Bing Professor of Population Studies, President of the Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biology, Stanford University, and author with his wife Anne Ehrlich [uncredited] of “The Population Bomb” in 1968) (asked “It's predicted that by 2100 the world population will plateau at 11 billion. Do you still maintain that the world population will be a major problem?”): “I don't maintain it will be. It’s already is a major problem. For example, even though there are some people who would claim that - professional deniers of climate change and the danger in climate change and their pimps in the fossil fuel industry, if you think about it for a minute, every person you add to the planet releases more CO2. When they release more CO2, it is a bigger threat not just to sea level rise. Everybody thinks sea level rise is the big thing about climate change. Actually, no. Our agricultural system is utterly dependent on the distribution, quality, timing of rainfall. All that's changing. We’re already seeing changes in the productivity of the basic grains we depend on. So each person you add needs more food, contributes more greenhouse gases, which increases the assault on agriculture, which has to be spread, the agricultural system already supplies something on the order of 30% of the greenhouse gases. So there’s just one little example where things are synergising and we are setting our kids up for even worse problems”.
Dr Paul Ehrlich) (asked “You have actually maintained, I think, there is a 90% chance that our civilisation will collapse within 50 years. How do you get to that?”): “Well, that is a gut feeling and the reason it’s a gut feeling is you can't deal with the discontinuities. In other words, you can see the general trends but many people, me included, but people who look at it more closely than I do, think the chances of a nuclear war between US and the Russians is bigger now than it was during most of the Cold War. They think there is an even bigger chance of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan and there that war itself, using maybe 215 kilotonne bombs, would destroy Australia and the US as a civilisation. Who can guess what the odds are on those. You get scared. But on the general trend, I think we will be very, very fortunate to avoid a collapse and Anne and I estimated 10%. Jim Brown, who is an energy expert and the world's greatest biogeographer said, "You’re crazy. There’s only a 1% chance of avoiding a collapse when you look at things like energy return on investment and so on.” Nobody knows. Jim is willing to work to make it a 1.1% chance. Anne and I are willing to work to make it an 11% chance, but I must say, when I watch the Republican debates, I'm converging on Jim”.
Dr Paul Ehrlich (asked “Do you think we’re overpopulated?): “ Yeah, I mean there’s no question about it. Talk to your ecologists. Talk to Corey - Corey Bradshaw and I just wrote a book called Killing The Koala and Poisoning the Prairies, which is a comparison of the US and Australia’s very successful war on the environment. You’re destroying your life support systems here. You’re working at it really hard. You are also working to become a Third World country, because your specialisation, of course, is to take your raw materials, like your coal, which are going to destroy the world of your grandchildren and great grandchildren, and ship as much of it unprocessed as you possibly can out to the rest of the world. A pile of coal that Australia shifts annually would be about the size of that thing there [lecture hall] extending that way all the way around the world and back to here, that's how much coal you dig out of the ground even though every scientist in the world knows we should stop burning it as fast as we possibly can. If you want a sustainable society, you can look to Australia. The Aborigines have the longest term sustainable society on the planet, until we came along, of course, and kind of screwed it up. But they went through 40, 50,000 years of great changes and so on, managed to survive, kept their numbers reasonable. By the way, you’re quite correct. If you want to solve the population problem, give women equal rights everywhere in the world. Give them equal opportunities. Give them access to modern contraception. Give them access to safe backup abortion and the odds are that you will start to slow population...” [2].
[1]. Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 7 March 2013 vol. 280 no. 1754 20122845: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845 and http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full .
[2]. Paul Ehrlich interviewed on Australian TV Q&A, “GST, Gonski, Population and Diversity”, 2 November 2015: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4321172.htm .
Bertrand Russell- Albert Einstein Manifesto ( July 9, 1955): “Here then is the problem that we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race, or shall mankind renounce war?… There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest” (Albert Camus quoted in John Scales Avery, “A World Federation”, Chapter 5, “Nuclear weapons as collective punishment”, Countercurrents, 11 December 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/12/11/a-world-federation-chapter-5-nuclear-weapons-as-collective-punishment/ ; John Scales Avery, “A World Federation”: http://eacpe.org/app/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-World-Federation-by-John-Scales-Avery.pdf ).
Albert Einstein: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our ways of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophes. I don’t know what will be used in the next world war, but the 4th will be fought with stones” Albert Einstein quoted in John Scales Avery, “A World Federation”, Chapter 5, “Nuclear weapons as collective punishment”, Countercurrents, 11 December 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/12/11/a-world-federation-chapter-5-nuclear-weapons-as-collective-punishment/ ; John Scales Avery, “A World Federation”: http://eacpe.org/app/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-World-Federation-by-John-Scales-Avery.pdf ).
Professor Brian Ellis (philosopher, University of Melbourne and La Trobe University) advocating an Interim World Government element to specifically deal with critical economic equity and anthropogenic climate change issues (2019): “If we do not do something like this, we are bound to become ruled by a consortium of international companies, who owe no allegiance to anyone, and who will, accordingly, govern the world in what they see as being in their own best interests. And as the crisis of 2008 clearly demonstrates, such a neoliberal solution is fraught with danger. Next time, there might really be a global collapse of free market capitalism, and in that case we will be looking at the near extinction of human and most animal life on earth” (page 230, Brian Ellis, “The New Enlightenment. On Steven Pinker & beyond”, Australian Scholarly Publishing , Melbourne, 2019; Gideon Polya, “Review: “The New Enlightenment” by Brian Ellis – World Government & Humanism to save Humanity”, Countercurrents, 7 October 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/10/review-the-new-enlightenment-by-brian-ellis-world-government-social-humanism-to-save-humanity ).
EMMOTT. Stephen Emmott (author of “Ten Billion”; Microsoft's Computational Science Laboratory in Cambridge; Professor of Computational Science at the University of Oxford) (2015): ‘Demand for food is set to double by 2050 as a result of increasing population and consumption per capita – especially as more people move to an increasingly meat-based diet. So-called “rational optimists” are quick to claim that this demand will be easily met without significant further appropriation of land for agricultural use thanks to the ongoing “miracle” of the green revolution. This ignores the fact that soil degradation and erosion are increasing rapidly in many parts of the world; that many of the world’s crops are increasingly at risk from novel (primarily) fungal pathogens; and that climate and crop models showing the number of extreme weather events associated with predicted future climate change are projected to have potentially devastating effects on crops in significant parts of the world. Indeed, there are ample reasons to be concerned that we may be heading towards unprecedented food crises over the coming decades, with consequent extremely deleterious risks to the health of hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of people. Furthermore, in many parts of the world where population is increasing rapidly, there is a rise in the number of people living in close quarters with pigs and poultry (not to mention the increasing consumption of “bush meat”). And as a consequence we are greatly increasing the risk of a novel pathogen crossing the species barrier and creating a truly terrifying global pandemic. Remarkably, collectively, we seem to want to deny all of this: that we are the drivers of the main problems facing us this century; and that, as we continue to grow, these problems are set to get worse. Climate change, extreme weather events, pollution, ecosystem degradation – the fundamental alteration of every component of the complex system we rely upon for our survival – are due to the activities of the rising human population” (Stephen Emmott, “Though climate change is a crisis, the population threat is even worse”, Guardian, 4 December 2015: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/04/climate-change-population-crisis-paris-summit ).
Professor Matthew England (Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) and The ARC Centre of Excellence in Climate System Science, Faculty of Science, The University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW Australia) (2012): “Net emissions in China are increasing faster than I think any other major nation. The problem is that obviously they've got so many people there that their per capita emissions are quite low. So at the negotiations they can come along and say, "Look, our per capita emissions are extremely low compared to, say, the United States or Australia. We're not gonna do anything until you guys bring your emissions down… Yeah, emissions are rising really quickly. One per cent per annum used to be considered high-end and we're now up around 2.5 to three per cent each year. So we're breaking a new world record for human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases every year. We need a sort of global-scale effort on this that is akin to preparing for a war, actually. It's akin to that scale of effort where all of the world's economies mobilise towards a problem that is facing the planet and facing the future of the planet.” [1].
[1]. Professor Matthew England in interview, “UN talks warn of hotter Earth”, ABC TV 1.30 Report, 3 December 2012: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3646515.htm .
FALK
Professor Richard Falk is the Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara; he authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008); Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008); he is currently serving his third year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights (see: http://mwcnews.net/component/comprofiler/userprofile/rfalk.html ) .
Professor Richard Falk on climate change inaction (2014): “The intense lobbying efforts by climate deniers, reinforced in the United States by a right wing anti-government tsunami that has paralyzed Congress, succeeded in blocking even modest market-based steps to induce energy efficiency. This bleak picture raises daunting biopolitical questions about whether the human species possesses a sufficient will to survive given its persisting inability to respond to the climate change challenge despite well-evidenced warnings about the consequences of a failure to do so. Less apocalyptically, this pattern of inaction makes us wonder whether a state-centric structure of world order can surmount the limits of national interests to undertake policies that promote the human interest in relation to global warming. International experience shows that where the interests of important states converge, especially if complemented by the interests of business and finance, collective initiatives upholding human interests can be implemented. The international regulation of ozone depletion, the public order of the oceans, the avoidance of international conflict in Antarctica, and the protection of some endangered marine species, such as whales, are illustrative of what is possible when a favorable lawmaking and compliance atmosphere exists. This record of regulation on behalf of the global common good are examples of success stories that make international law seem more worthwhile than media cynics and influential political realists acknowledge. Yet in relation to the climate change agenda, despite the strong, even stridently avowed, consensus among climate scientists (at about the 97% level), the dynamics of forging the sort of agreement that will keep global warming within prudent and manageable limits has not materialized. Such a world order failure is imposing serious costs. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the longer the buildup of greenhouse gasses is allowed to continue, the worse will be the harmful effects on human wellbeing and the greater the costs of preventing still worse future impacts. Anticipated harm will take the form of rising sea levels, drought and floods, damaging fires, extreme weather, melting polar ice caps and glaciers, and crop failures. At some point thresholds of irreversibility will be crossed, and the fate of the human species, along with that of most of nature, becomes negatively determined beyond easy alteration.” [1].
[1]. Richard Falk , “Shifts in the Climate Change Debate: hopes and suspicion”, MWC News, July 2014: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/42473-hope-and-suspicion.html
Nick Feik (on-line editor of “The Monthly”, Australia) (2012): “As a movement ushering in solutions to halt or slow climate change, it [Environmentalism] has been catastrophically ineffective. Worst of all, it appears it's now too late for environmentalists to win the fight. The problem is simple: it's hard to see how we will reduce emissions at a rate fast enough to prevent runaway climate change. Global emissions are rising (they were up 3 per cent in 2011), and will likely continue to do so. They need to be falling precipitously. India and China are growing their economies thanks mostly to fossil fuels, as are the economies of much of the rest of Asia, South America, Africa and the Middle East. Few if any of these countries will commit to substantial total emissions cuts, and most developed nations in Europe, as well as the US, Canada and New Zealand, are now reticent about the emissions targets required. As reported by The Age on Monday, the world is on track to see an ''unrecognisable planet'' that is between 4 and 6 degrees hotter by the end of this century. And the latest forecast doesn't include the effects of thawing permafrost, a feedback loop the magnitude of which we're only just starting to understand. Trying to reduce emissions is not pointless; any reductions will help to some extent, and should be pursued. But reductions on a scale that's now required? Almost no chance… Australia's major political parties say they are planning to reduce our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, with bigger cuts to follow. Actually, on government forecasts, our emissions will rise by 12 per cent (above 2000 levels) by 2020, even with a carbon price. We will only achieve our 5 per cent ''cut'' by purchasing emissions reductions from other countries. And, perhaps worse, our coal exports are exacerbating other countries' emissions addiction.” [1].
[1]. Nick Feik, “Green movement has been an abject failure”, The Age, On-line, National Times, 5 December 2012: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/green-movement-has-been-an-abject-failure-20121204-2at7t.html .
V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California) (2008): “The observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) since the preindustrial era has most likely committed the world to a warming of 2.4°C (1.4°C to 4.3°C) above the preindustrial surface temperatures. The committed warming is inferred from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of the greenhouse forcing and climate sensitivity. The estimated warming of 2.4°C is the equilibrium warming above preindustrial temperatures that the world will observe even if GHG concentrations are held fixed at their 2005 concentration levels but without any other anthropogenic forcing such as the cooling effect of aerosols. The range of 1.4°C to 4.3°C in the committed warming overlaps and surpasses the currently perceived threshold range of 1°C to 3°C for dangerous anthropogenic interference with many of the climate-tipping elements such as the summer arctic sea ice, Himalayan–Tibetan glaciers, and the Greenland Ice Sheet. IPCC models suggest that ≈25% (0.6°C) of the committed warming has been realized as of now. About 90% or more of the rest of the committed warming of 1.6°C will unfold during the 21st century, determined by the rate of the unmasking of the aerosol cooling effect by air pollution abatement laws and by the rate of release of the GHGs-forcing stored in the oceans. The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries. Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4°C… It is now recognized that DAI [Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference] must involve a range of threshold values of global and regional surface temperature change (5) depending on the elements of the climate system that are being impacted by the warming. This perception has led to the notion of climate tipping elements (6), some of which are hypothesized to be triggered by global warming in the range of 1°C to 2°C, and many others when global warming is in the range of 3°C to 5°C (see Fig. 1 ) [Arctic summer sea ice, Himalayan Tibetan glaciers, Greenland ice sheet at ca 2C; Amazon rainforest at ca 3C; ENSO, Thermohaline circulation , West Antarctic ice sheet at ca 4C],” (V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng, “On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: formidable challenges ahead”, PNAS, vol. 105, no. 38, pp14245–14250: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14245.full ).
FIGUERES. Christiana Figueres, executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, re the INDCs or Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, the plans from 146 countries that cover nearly 90% of global emissions, and submitted before the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference (2015) : “These national climate action plans represent a clear and determined down-payment on a new era of climate ambition from the global community of nations. Governments from all corners of the earth have signalled through their INDCs that they are determined to play their part according to their national circumstances and capabilities. The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7C by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs” (Fiona Harvey, “World’s climate pledges not yet enough to avoid dangerous warming – UN”, Guardian, 30 October 2015: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/30/worlds-climate-pledges-likely-to-lead-to-less-than-3c-of-warming-un ).
Dr Brian Cox and Dr Jeff Forshaw are UK physicists who co-authored the book “The Quantum Universe” (see: http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2011/12/interview-science-cox-physics ).
Dr Brian Cox and Dr Jeff Forshaw interviewed by Helen Lewis-Hasteley for the UK New Statesman (8 December 2011):
HL-H: How much of a responsibility do you feel to be an advocate for science generally?
BC: A lot. I think the peer-review process is the best way we have of giving our best view on how nature works. There are no absolute truths in science. Take a so-called controversy such as climate change: the correct thing to say is that we make measurements of the climate, we look at the data, we model it and here are a range of predictions. While it's easy to point out the flaws, in general it's unarguable that science works. . . because we're not in fucking caves!
HL-H: What motivates climate sceptics and the rest?
BC: Carl Sagan pointed out that "Science challenges". And the natural human response from people who are educated, who have a title or position, is to assume their opinion is worth something. And science tells you that your opinion is worthless when confronted with the evidence. That's a difficult thing to learn. When you look back at the Greeks or Romans and think, "Why didn't they get science?", maybe it was that.
JF: As a theoretical physicist, most of my time is spent doing calculations that are wrong. It's a humbling exercise, a massive dose of humility.
…
HL-H: Are we all doomed?
JF: The only thing that will save us is fundamental physics, because we have to escape to a distant part of the universe.
BC: On the human timescale, the adoption of the scientific method - making rational decisions based on evidence - that's the important thing. Look at public policy, health policy, economics: there's a reluctance to be humble.” [1].
[1]. Dr Brian Cox and Dr Jeff Forshaw interviewed by Helen Lewis-Hasteley for the UK New Statesman, “Science tells you that your opinion is worthless. That’s difficult”, UK New Statesman, 8 December 2011: http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2011/12/interview-science-cox-physics .
Gavin L. Foster, Dana L. Royer & Daniel J. Lunt (paleoclimatologists) (2017): “The evolution of Earth’s climate on geological timescales is largely driven by variations in the magnitude of total solar irradiance (TSI) and changes in the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere. Here we show that the slow ∼50 Wm−2 increase in TSI over the last ∼420 million years (an increase of ∼9 Wm−2 of radiative forcing) was almost completely negated by a long-term decline in atmospheric CO2. This was likely due to the silicate weathering-negative feedback and the expansion of land plants that together ensured Earth’s long-term habitability. Humanity’s fossil-fuel use, if unabated, risks taking us, by the middle of the twenty-first century, to values of CO2 not seen since the early Eocene (50 million years ago) [700 ppm CO2]. If CO2 continues to rise further into the twenty-third century, then the associated large increase in radiative forcing, and how the Earth system would respond, would likely be without geological precedent in the last half a billion years [2000 ppm CO2]… The majority (∼75%) of the greenhouse effect is due to the warming effects of water vapour and clouds, with the non-condensing greenhouse gasses (predominantly CO2 and CH4) accounting for the remaining 25%. However, at the temperatures and pressures typical of the Earth’s surface, water vapour and clouds act as feedbacks rather than drivers of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 and CH4, and the other non-condensing GHGs (for example, N2O) determining the overall strength of the greenhouse effect” (Gavin L. Foster, Dana L. Royer & Daniel J. Lunt, “Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years ”, Nature, volume 8, 4 April 2017: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845 )
Michael Gerrard (director, of the Sabin Center for Climate Change , Columbia Law School) (2018): “Toward the end of this century, if current trends are not reversed, large parts of Bangladesh, the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt and Vietnam, among other countries, will be under water” (Michael Gerrard quoted on page 102, Suketu Mehta , “This Land Is Our Land. An Immigrant’s Manifesto ”, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2019).
Sanjeev Ghotge (formerly Professor at the Centre for Applied Systems Analysis in Development , Pune and later Sr. Fellow and Head, Climate and Sustainability Policy at the World Institute of Sustainable Energy, Pune, India) (2015): “The first row of the table, taken from IPCC 2007, shows that a CO2 concentration of 400 ppm will result in an equilibrium temperature between 2.0 and 2.4 deg C i.e. higher than 2 deg C. Since the CO2 concentration reached 400 ppm last year (2014), this means that the earth's atmosphere will eventually heat up by 2 deg C, since we have no proven and tested technologies for decarbonizing the atmosphere. The deceptive aspect arises because there is a time lag, estimated between 35-40 years, between reaching a particular concentration level and reaching the corresponding equilibrium temperature. In other words, we can expect a temperature rise of 2 deg C by around 2050. When that temperature is reached, the land component of the earth system will stop absorbing net CO2 from the atmosphere, instead becoming a net emitter … Roughly speaking, we are on course to reach 2 deg C by 2050, 4 deg C by 2100 and 6 deg C by 2150. A few years this way or that will hardly matter or disprove the basic science. Another set of statements emanating recently from IPCC sources seem to claim that there is as yet a global “carbon budget” available before the 2 deg C threshold is breached. As the above table indicates clearly, this is simply incorrect in terms of the current knowledge and position taken by IPCC itself in 2007.The above table indicates that the carbon budget is now effectively zero; all that IPCC seems to be doing is buying time for the power elites of the world , by keeping alive false hopes” (see Sanjeev Ghotge, “Climate Change – Too Late To Halt?”, Countercurrents, 4 May, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/ghotge040515.htm ).
[Editor: For similar expert opinions see the websites “Are we doomed?”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/are-we-doomed and "Too late to avoid global warming catastrophe": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/too-late-to-avoid-global-warming . However technologies - albeit expensive technologies - do exist to decarbonize the atmosphere (biochar, Accelerated Weathering of Limestone, mineral carbonation and Carbon Capture and Storage) (see Gideon Polya, “Intergenerational Theft – For Every $1 For Coal Today Future Generations Will Pay $1-$14 To Sequester CO2”, Countercurrents, 8 April, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya080415.htm ) . Further, we must keep on trying to make the horrific future “less bad” – indeed estimates that it is too late to avoid catastrophic warming should galvanize activists to more effective action].
Dr Andrew Glikson is an Earth and paleoclimate scientist, a Visiting Fellow at the School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, an Honorary Professor at the Center for Excellence in Geothermal Research, The University of Queensland, and is affiliated with the Climate Change Institute and the Planetary Science Institute, Australian National University. He graduated at the University of Western Australia in 1968, conducted geological surveys in central and western Australia and became a Principal Research Scientist with the Australian Geological Survey Organization (now Geoscience Australia) (see: http://theconversation.edu.au/as-emissions-rise-we-may-be-heading-for-an-ice-free-planet-4893 ) .
Dr Andrew Glikson (2012): “Studies of the evolution of the terrestrial atmosphere based on multiple proxies (carbon isotopes in phytoplankton and in fossil soils, plant leaf stomata pores, boron isotopes, boron/calcium ratios) confirm the upper stability boundary of the Antarctic ice sheet at about 500+/-50 ppm CO₂. Other estimates suggest 615 ppm CO2 or near-800 ppm CO2. The original decline in temperature from the end-Eocene (~34 million years ago) and the onset of the Antarctic ice sheet occurred when CO2 levels declined to below ~600 ppm (as shown in Figure 1). Greenhouse gases have increased by near 40% since 1750 (from ~280 to 392 ppm CO₂, at a rate increasing to ~2.6 ppm/year by 2010). At the current rate of increase, the climate could return to greenhouse Earth conditions within 50 to 200 years. With current emissions growing by 5.9% in 2010 (see Figure 2) and a corresponding rise of temperature by 6.2% during the last decade (see Figure 3), Earth may be committed to an ice-free state…
As atmospheric CO2 is reaching a level unknown for the last three million years, the disconnection between science and the human response is growing. Despite warnings over the last 30 years, we are still developing global infrastructures to extract every economically accessible ton of coal, barrel of conventional or shale/sand oil and cubic meter of natural gas and coal-seam gas. Contrarian claims by sceptics, misrepresenting direct observations in nature and ignoring the laws of physics, have been adopted by neo-conservative political parties. A corporate media maintains a “balance” between facts and fiction. The best that governments seem able to do is devise cosmetic solutions, or promise further discussions, while time is running out. Good planets are hard to come by.” [1].
Andrew Glikson (Australian Earth and Paleoclimate scientist) on looming climate catastrophe, climate genocide and “existential calamity for civilization and nature”(2016): “Little mention is made of the existential threats posed by the climate and nuclear issues in the context of the current elections in the US and Australia. According to the world’s climate research institutions and the bulk of the peer reviewed scientific literature, the Earth has now entered a critical stage at which amplifying feedback effects to global warming transcend points of no return. Manifestations of a shift in state of the climate include; current rise in CO2 at 3.3 parts per million per year, the fastest recorded for the last 65 million years; extreme rises in Arctic temperatures; a plethora of extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods and fires; demise of habitats such as the Great Barrier Reef where corals die due to high water temperatures and coral bleaching; and other developments. The extreme rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the onset of the industrial age, and the corresponding rise in mean global temperatures as a direct result of the rise in carbon gases, pose an existential risk to the future of nature and civilization. The consequences of further burning of the vast carbon reserves buried in sediments and in permafrost and bogs can only result in a mass extinction of species which rivals that of the five great mass extinctions in Earth history… It follows that, where and when the majority of authoritative scientific institutions (NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, Hadley-Met, Tyndale, Potsdam, CSIRO, World Academy of Science, IPCC and so on), based on the bulk of the evidence, indicate beyond reasonable doubt that open-ended emissions of greenhouse gases inevitably lead to a major shift in the terrestrial climate, and thereby the demise of humans and of species, a toleration and/or condoning of continuing emissions by governments contravenes at the very least the spirit of international laws… 1. Since the mid-1980s an abrupt rise in the temperature levels of the atmosphere, driven by an increase in concentration of greenhouse gases arising from release of >600billion ton of carbon (GtC) to the atmosphere is leading to an extreme shift in state of the atmosphere-ocean system, such has no precedence in the recorded geological history, with the exception of events which resulted in the mass extinction of species, including massive volcanism, extra-terrestrial impacts and large-scale release of methane. 2. As a direct consequence of the above, as well as reduction of the transient protection by industrial sulphur dioxide since mid-1980s, mean global temperatures have risen since about 1970 by more than 0.6o Currently, had it not been for the aerosols, mean global temperature would have been higher by an additional near to 1oC. 3. Allowing for the masking effect of sulphur aerosols, the total rise in temperature since the onset of the industrial age ~1750 is reaching levels similar to those of the Pliocene period (~2.6 – 5.3 million years ago). The shift is occurring at the fastest rate recorded by paleoclimate studies. Whereas many species can adapt to gradual environmental changes, the current temperature rise rate resulting from ~2-3 parts per million (ppm) CO2/year may not be sustained. 4. The current change is manifested by an increase in the rate of melting of the major ice sheets, accelerating sea level rise and a rise in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, reflecting elevated energy level of the atmosphere-ocean system. 5.The consequences of continuing carbon emissions and consequent rise of mean global temperatures would render large parts of the Earth’s land surfaces uninhabitable due to temperature rise, droughts, storms and flooding of coastal, deltas and lower river regions by sea level rise – estimated as about 25+/-12 meters under Pliocene conditions, constituting an existential calamity for civilization and nature. 6. Excepting injection of transient short residence-time sulphur aerosols, the arrest of current climate trend would require (A) a meaningful reduction in current rate of carbon emission(~9 GtC/year) and (B) development of new methodologies for draw-down of atmospheric CO2, by at least 50 ppm, requiring research efforts on a global scale” [2].
[1]. Andrew Glikson, “As emissions rise, we may be heading for an ice-free planet”, The Conversation, 18 January 2012: http://theconversation.edu.au/as-emissions-rise-we-may-be-heading-for-an-ice-free-planet-4893 .
[2]. Andrew Glikson, “The climate Titanic and the melting icebergs”, Countercurrents, 30 June 2016: http://www.countercurrents.org/2016/06/30/the-climate-titanic-and-the-melting-icebergs/ .
Andrew Glikson on Carolyn Snyder projections (2016): “Current greenhouse gas concentrations could warm the world 3-7℃ (and on average 5℃) over coming millennia. That’s the finding of a paper published in Nature today. The research, by Carolyn Snyder, reconstructed temperatures over the past 2 million years. By investigating the link between carbon dioxide and temperature in the past, Snyder made new projections for the future. The Paris climate agreement seeks to limit warming to a “safe” level of well below 2℃ and aim for 1.5℃ by 2100. The new research shows that even if we stop emissions now, we’ll likely surpass this threshold in the long term, with major consequences for the planet.…
Other research has shown that during the mid-Pliocene epoch (about 4.5 million years ago) atmospheric CO₂ levels of about 365-415ppm were associated with temperatures about 3–4 °C warmer than before the Industrial Revolution. This suggests that the climate is more sensitive than we thought. This is concerning because since the 18th century CO₂ levels have risen from around 280ppm to 402ppm in April this year. The levels are currently rising at around 3ppm each year, a rate unprecedented in 55 million years. This could lead to extreme warming over the coming millennia…
The new paper recalculates this sensitivity again – and unfortunately the results aren’t in our favour. The study suggests that stabilisation of today’s CO₂ levels would still result in 3-7℃ warming, whereas doubling of CO₂ will lead to 7-13℃ warming over millennia…
As yet we don’t know the details of how different parts of the Earth will respond to increasing greenhouse gases through both long-term warming and short-term regional or local reversals (stadials). Unless humanity develops methods for drawing down atmospheric CO₂ on a scale required to cool the Earth to below 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperature, at the current rate of CO₂ increase of 3ppm per year we are entering dangerous uncharted climate territory” (Andrew Glikson, “Current emissions could already warm world to dangerous levels: study”, The Conversation, 27 September 2016: https://theconversation.com/current-emissions-could-already-warm-world-to-dangerous-levels-study-66040?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%2027%202016%20-%205678&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%2027%202016%20-%205678+CID_0cc879e29f9bc359d48fa8ad3afac684&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Andrew%20Glikson%20explains ).
Dr Andrew Glikson on Planetcide (2018): “Since the industrial age about 1750 and in particular from 1950, a period denoted as the Anthropocoene (cf. Steffen, Crutzen and McNeill, Ambio, 36, 614-621, 2007), deforestation and climate change led to the demise of an estimated 10,000 species per year due to destruction of habitats, ever increasing carbon pollution, acidification of the hydrosphere. Planetcide stems back to deep recesses of the human mind, primeval fear of death leading to yearning for god-like immortality. Once excess food was produced, fear and its counterpart, violence, grew out of control, generating murderous orgies called “war“, designed to conquer death to appease the Gods. From the Romans to the Third Reich, the barbarism of empires surpasses that of small marauding tribes. In the name of freedom they never cease to bomb peasant populations in their small fields. Only among the wretched of the Earth is true charity common, where empathy is learnt through suffering. War is a synonym for ritual sacrifice of the young. From infanticide by rival warlord baboons, to the butchering of young children on Aztec altars, to the generational sacrifice such as in WWI, youths follow leaders blindly to the death. Hijacking the image of Christ, a messenger of justice and peace, fundamentalists promote a self-fulfilling Armageddon, while other see their future on space ships and barren planets. Nowadays a cabal of multibillionaires, executives and their political and media mouthpieces are leading the human race and much of nature to ultimate demise, with little resistance from the majority of people, either unaware or too afraid to resist the slide over the cliff” (Andrew Glikson, “Crimes against the Earth”, Countercurrents, 14 December 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/12/14/crimes-against-the-earth/ ).
Dr Andrew Glikson (2019): “According to Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chief climate advisor to the European Union, “We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet”. As fascism and the horror of murderous hate crimes are on the rise, governments are presiding over runaway climate change leading toward mass extinctions of species, costing the lives of billions and the demise of much of nature, while children are protesting against the betrayal of their future… At +4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperature, projected by the IPCC for the end of the 21st century, life on Earth could be depleted to levels such as existed in the wake of previous mass extinctions of species… Since many in authority do not accept, or only pay lip service to, climate science, it is a good question whether governments would be investing in adaptation measures in time. In particular no plans appear at hand for draw-down of CO2 – the one measure which could potentially arrest global warming. In this regard the reluctance to date to undertake meaningful mitigation measures does not bode well. The powers to be are now presiding over the greatest calamity that has ever befell on humanity and on much of nature” (Andrew Glikson, “The advent of extreme weather events and climate tipping points”, Countercurrents, 16 March 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/03/16/the-advent-of-extreme-weather-events-and-climate-tipping-points/ ).
Dr Andrew Glikson (2019): “As election cycles come and go and as the climate warms toward four degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, the demise of much of the living world remains but a footnote in the mainstream media, owned by vested interests, the tail which wags the political dog. Scientists know, many people know, many children know, yet those in power and conveniently ignore it, dragging the living world to the greatest crisis nature and humanity have suffered since the rise of civilization some 10,000 years ago… According to Stephen Hawking a principal characteristic of a black hole resides in the loss of all information as matter and energy fall through the event horizon. In a similar vein, as the world’s “powers that be” ignore the basic laws of physics, the rise of extreme weather events bears portents of a demise of much of nature, and with it human civilization” (Andrew Glikson, “The climate crisis and the extinction rebellion”, Countercurrents, 28 April 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/04/28/the-climate-crisis-and-the-extinction-rebellion-andrew-glikson/ ).
Andrew Glikson (2019): “As fires rage across tens of thousands square km the Amazon forest, dubbed the Planet’s lungs, producing some 20 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere, with some 72,843 fires in Brazil this year, where fires on such a scale are uncommon, as well as through Siberia, Alaska, Greenland, southern Europe and elsewhere, they herald a world where increasing temperatures and droughts overwhelm original habitats, flora and fauna (Figure 1). As the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets progressively melt, at more than 6 times faster than during the Seventies, the tropics expand and arid deserts encroach into temperate Mediterranean-type climate zones at a rate of 56 – 111 km per decade, the Earth’s fertile regions are progressively replaced by environments less suitable for farming.… The pace of global warming is astounding climate scientists. Within the last 70 years or so major shifts in climate zones and an accelerating spate of extreme weather events—cyclones, floods, droughts, heat waves and fires (Figure 2)— is increasingly ravaging large tracts of Earth [Fig. 2 shows that since 1980 the annual number of droughts, floods and storms have increased roughly 4-fold, 4-fold and 2-fold, respectively, while annual earthquake incidence is essentially unchanged]” (Andrew Glikson, “Tinderbox Earth: the significance of the Amazon and Siberian fires”, Countercurrents, 27 August 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/08/tinderbox-earth-the-significance-of-the-amazon-and-siberian-fires ).
Andrew Glikson (2019), “The planetary consequences of injecting > 910 billion tons CO2 into the atmosphere are playing in real time. The Arctic Circle is suffering from an unprecedented number of wildfires in the latest sign of a climate crisis. With some blazes the size of 100,000 football pitches, vast areas in Siberia, Alaska and Greenland are engulfed in flames. The World Meteorological Organisation has said these fires emitted as much carbon dioxide in a month as the whole of Sweden does in a year. The world is literally on fire – so why is it business as usual for politicians? The recent spate of regional to continent-scale fires, in Brazil, Siberia, California, southern Europe, Queensland and elsewhere, represents temperature rises over tinder-dry regions of Earth where forests, originally developed under Mediterranean to sub-polar climate conditions, are overtaken by heat waves associated with the polar-ward migration of tropical and subtropical climate zones… As the globe warms, to date by a mean of near ~1.5 oC, or ~2.0oC when the masking effects of sulphur dioxide and other aerosols are considered, and by a mean of ~2.3oC in the Polar Regions, the expansion of warm tropical latitudes and the polar-ward migration of climate zones ensue in large scale droughts in subtropical latitudes such as in inland Australia and southern Africa. A similar trend is taking place in the northern hemisphere where the Sahara desert is expanding northward, with consequent heat waves across the Mediterranean and Europe. Since 1979 the planet’s tropics have been expanding poleward by 56 km to 111 km per decade in both hemispheres. A leading commentator called this Earth’s bulging waistline” (Andrew Glikson, “Inferno: from climate denial to planetary arson”, ”, Countercurrents, 8 September 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/09/inferno-from-climate-denial-to-planetary-arson ).
Dr Andrew Glikson (Earth and climate scientist, Australian National University, Canberra) (2019): “ As the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen to 408 ppm and the total greenhouse gas level, including methane and nitrous oxide, combine to near 500 parts per million CO2-equivalent, the stability threshold of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, currently melting at an accelerated rate, has been exceeded. The consequent expansion of tropics and the shift of climate zones toward the shrinking poles lead to increasingly warm and dry conditions under which fire storms, currently engulfing large parts of South America (Fig. 1), California, Alaska, Siberia, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Angola, Australia and elsewhere have become a dominant factor in the destruction of terrestrial habitats…
Allowing for the transient albedo enhancing effects of sulphur dioxide and other aerosols, mean global temperature has potentially reached ~2.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. Current greenhouse gas forcing and global mean temperatures are approaching Miocene-like (5.3-23 million years-ago) composition. The current carbon dioxide rise rate exceeds the fastest rates estimated for the K-T asteroid impact (66.4 million years-ago) and the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Temperature Maximum) hyperthermal event (55.9 million years ago) by an order of magnitude…
To try and avoid a global calamity abrupt reduction in carbon emissions is essential, but since the high level of CO2-equivalent is activating amplifying feedbacks from land and ocean, global attempts to down-draw about of 50 to 100 ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere, using every effective negative emissions, is essential. Such efforts would include streaming air through basalt and serpentine, biochar cultivation, sea weed sequestration, reforestation, sodium hydroxide pipe systems and other methods. But while $trillions continue to be poured into preparation of future wars, currently no government is involved in any serious attempt at the defense of life on Earth” (Andrew Glikson, “The fatal nexus – atmospheric CO2 and the mass extinction of species”, Countercurrents, 6 November 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/11/the-fatal-nexus-atmospheric-co2-and-the-mass-extinction-of-species ).
Global Carbon Project “Global Carbon Budget 2012)”: “CO2 emissions from fossil fuels burning and cement production increased by 3% in 2011, with a total of 9.5±0.5 PgC emitted to the atmosphere (34.7 billion tonnes of CO2). These emissions were the highest in human history and 54% higher than in 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol reference year). In 2011, coal burning was responsible for 43% of the total emissions, oil 34%, gas 18%, and cement 5%. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels burning and cement production are projected to increase by 2.6% in 2012, to a record high of 9.7±0.5 PgC (35.6 billion tonnes of CO2)… Current trajectories of fossil fuel emissions are tracking some of the most carbon intensive emission scenarios used in the Intergovermental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). The current trajectory is tracking the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (of the latest family of IPCC scenarios) that takes the planet to about 4°C to 6.1°C above pre-industrial times by 2100.” [1].
[1]. UK Global Carbon Project “Global Carbon Budget”, Media Summary highlights (2012): http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/12/hl-compact.htm .
Measures of how serious the climate emergency is are given by the Global Risk and Opportunity Indicator that is based on data from the latest UN IPCC AR5 report (2013) and which explains “You can use it to calculate and visualize the risk our planet is facing with regards to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Choose parts per million (PPM) of greenhouse gases in the menu to the left, and the average temperature rise in degrees Celsius in the menu to the right. In the third menu you can compare the probability for climate change with other events, such as fatal flight accidents, and display them both on the meter” (see Global Risk and Opportunity Indicator: http://global-risk-indicator.net/ ).
Thus, for example, the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers (2014) offers a RCP2.6 scenario that will “limit greenhouse gas concentrations to low levels (about 450 ppm CO2-eq, likely to limit warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels)”. However,
using the Global Risk and Opportunity Indicator we find that the Exceedance Probability for a 2°C temperature rise with an equilibrium greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration of 450 ppm CO2-eq is 58.4% , and that if this were the annual probability of fatal flight accidents there would be 17,520,000 fatal flight accidents per year instead of 30 per year.
Similarly, the Exceedance Probability for a 2°C temperature rise with an equilibrium greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration of 500 ppm CO2-eq is 72.5% , and that if this were the annual probability of fatal flight accidents there would be 21,750,000 fatal flight accidents per year instead of 30 per year.
Unfortunately Professor Ron Prinn (Professor of Atmospheric Science at 83-Nobel-Laureate MIT) reports that 478 ppm CO2-eq was already attained by 2013 (see Ron Prinn, “400 ppm CO2? Add other GHGs and its equivalent to 478 ppm”, Oceans at MIT, 6 June 2013: http://oceans.mit.edu/featured-stories/5-questions-mits-ron-prinn-400-ppm-threshold ).
Further, Professor James Hansen (from NASA and 101-Nobel-Laureate Columbia University) reports that plus 2°C would be disastrous – at 2 °C Earth would be headed back toward equilibrium Pliocene-like conditions (sea level about 25 m higher than today) (see James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato, “Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change”: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf ).
Himanshu Goenka (2017): “Two separate studies published online Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change found Earth will be warmer by at least 2 degrees by the year 2100. The main difference between the two analyses of climate change was that one used Fahrenheit and the other Celsius to predict the rise in global temperatures. One study, led by researchers from University of Washington (UW) [Raftery et al.], used statistical tools and concluded there was “only a 5 percent chance that Earth will warm 2 degrees [Celsius] or less by the end of this century. It shows a mere 1 percent chance that warming could be at or below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], the target set by the 2016 Paris Agreement… The other study, titled “Committed warming inferred from observations,” was authored by Robert Pincus of University of Colorado, Boulder, and Thorsten Mauritsen from Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. And it said even if we somehow stopped all greenhouse gas emissions in 2017, the Earth would still heat up by about 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.3 degrees Celsius) by the turn of the century. If emissions continue at the current pace for another 15 years, there is a high chance it will lead to a 3 degrees Fahrenheit [1.7 degrees Celsius] temperature rise, according to the study. It also said “there is a 13 percent chance we are already committed” to a rise of 3 degrees Fahrenheit [1.7 degrees Celsius, for a total post-1850 rise of 2.7C] by 2100, irrespective of future emissions””(Himanshu Goenka, “Global warming by 2 degrees unavoidable by 2100, 2 studies find”, International Business Times, 1 August 2017: https://www.ibtimes.com/global-warming-2-degrees-unavoidable-2100-2-studies-find-2572839 ).
Dr. T. Goreau (President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance, an international NGO for restoration of coral reefs, and a member of the Jamaican delegation to UNCCC; previously Senior Scientific Affairs Officer at the United Nations Centre for Science and Technology for Development, in charge of Global Climate Change and Biodiversity issues, where he contributed to the original draft of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) on 260 ppm CO2 target:
“The long-term sea level that corresponds to current CO2 concentration is about 23 meters above today’s levels, and the temperatures will be 6 degrees C or more higher. These estimates are based on real long term climate records, not models … Current “targets” for CO2 being discussed by UNCCC are way too high to prevent the extinction of coral reefs (which can take no further warming, since most corals have died in the last 20 years from heat shock) and the disappearance of all low lying islands and coastlines where billions of people live. Even a target of 350 ppm is UNACCEPTABLE if we are to avoid dangerous interference with the Earth climate system, causing inconceivable ecological, environmental, and economic disaster. Global warming must not be allowed to continue as would happen by stabilizing CO2 and temperature at present levels. Greenhouse gas buildup MUST BE REVERSED, and CO2 reduced to levels of around 260 ppm, below Pre-Industrial levels. The technologies to do so are proven, cost effective, and capable of being rapidly ramped up, but are not being used on the scale needed due to lack of serious policies and funding to reverse global warming and stabilize the climate system at safe levels. THAT IS WHAT AOSIS AND UNCCC MUST ACCOMPLISH IF WE ARE TO PRESERVE OUR PLANETʼS LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. The solutions are already in hand. Letʼs all get serious and stop stealing our childrenʼs future!” [1].
[Editor's note: atmospheric CO2 concentration has now reached over 400 ppm CO2 and CO2-equivalent is now 478 ppm CO2-e (2013)].
[1]. T. Goreau, “What is the right target for CO2?: 350 ppm is a death sentence for coral reefs and low-lying islands, the safe level of CO2 for SIDS [Small Island Developing States] is 260 parts per million”, Scientific & Technical Briefing To the Association of Small Island States United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen, Denmark, December 7-18 2009: http://www.globalcoral.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/aosis_briefing_2009.pdf .
[Editor note: the non-binding national greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution reduction commitments made to the failed Paris Climate Change Conference translate to a plus 2.7 degree C temperature rise; the present value is plus 0.9C; and plus 2C is catastrophic and now unavoidable ].
Greens spokesperson Senator Lee Rhiannon is a Greens Senator in the Australian Parliament. The Greens are an important pro-environment, pro-human rights political party in Australia (see: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/australian-heatwaves-hotter-longer-climate-council ).
The Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon on the worsening Australian heatwave threat (SE Australia in January 2014 suffered one of its worst ever heatwaves with temperatures over 40C for days and peaking at 46C) (2014): “ “The Climate Council has warned that global warming will bring more extreme weather and heatwaves and we can’t pretend it’s not going to happen. We must prepare for it and stop it getting worse by reducing greenhouse pollution. The clean energy laws are already reducing greenhouse pollution and creating jobs. It really is time for [Coalition PM] Tony Abbott to abandon his ideological rejection of the climate science and put the Australian community first.” [1].
The Guardian editorial on the 2018 IPCC Report “Global warming of 1.5 °C” (2018): “Climate change is an existential threat to the human race… The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us that there are only a dozen or so years in which to change our economies radically if we are to keep the effects of the warming already under way to manageable proportions. That would require the countries of the world to live up to the most ambitious of the goals of the Paris climate change agreement, and keep the rise in average global temperatures to 1.5C above preindustrial levels. A rise of even half a degree above that, to 2C, will have effects that are very much worse. Already this seems much more likely. All corals will disappear, as will many insects and plants… All these risks make it quite credible that we will end with a warming of 3C, 4C or even worse – and the consequences will be globally terrible, and everywhere unavoidable. Hundreds of millions of people may die through droughts on land, and flooding at the coasts, through the loss of marine species due to acidification of the oceans, and probably through the disruption of long-term weather patterns around which the world’s agriculture has been shaped.” (The Guardian, Editorial, “The Guardian view on climate change: a global emergency”, The Guardian, 9 October 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/08/the-guardian-view-on-climate-change-a-global-emergency ).
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in a key speech in New York City (2018): “If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us… Last week I was at the launch of the New [Climate] Economy report from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate Change. It shows that that climate action and socio-economic progress are mutually supportive, with gains of 26 trillion dollars predicted by 2030 compared with business as usual. If we pursue the right path. For example, for every dollar spent restoring degraded forests, as much as $30 dollars can be recouped in economic benefits and poverty reduction… Last year, China invested 126 billion dollars in renewable energy, an increase of 30 per cent on the previous year… More than 130 of the world’s largest and most influential businesses plan to power their operations with 100 per cent renewable energy… The world’s richest nations are the most responsible for the climate crisis, yet the effects are being felt first and worst by the poorest nations and the most vulnerable peoples and communities… Women and girls, in particular, will pay the price – not only because their lives will become harder but because, in times of disaster, women and girls always suffer disproportionally… Our fate is in our hands. The world is counting on all of us to rise to the challenge before it’s too late. I count on you all” (Antonio Guterres, UN Climate Change News, 10 September 2018: https://unfccc.int/index.php/news/un-secretary-general-antonio-guterres-calls-for-climate-leadership-outlines-expectations-for-next ).
Roger Hallam (co-founder of Extinction Rebellion) (2019): “Teenagers are shitting themselves about what’s happening for the future, they’ve got another 50, 60, 70 years to live on this planet, by that time there could only be a billion people left. I mean that’s six billion people that have died from starvation or slaughtered in war” (Roger Hallam, “Something drastic has to happen”, BBC HARDtalk 17 August 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HyaxctatdA ; Roger Hallam quoted in David Spratt, “At 4oC of warming, would a billion people survive? What scientists say” , Climate Code Red, 18 August 2019: http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/08/at-4c-of-warming-would-billion-people.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29 ).
Clive Hamilton (Australian climate economist and Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) and the Vice-Chancellor's Chair in Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University) on human survival in “The Four Degrees World” (2010): “One way or another, humans will have to adapt to life in a hotter world. Many plausible scenarios suggest a sharp decline in the number of people that will survive in the long term. Some suggest a billion or a few hundred million will remain in a century or two, but one guess is as good as another. One thing is certain: the transition to a new stage of stability will be long and brutal, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable whose survival will be threatened with food shortages, extreme weather events and disease” [1].
[1]. Clive Hamilton, page 204, “The Four Degree World”, Chapter 7 in “Requiem for a Species. Why we resist the truth about climate change”, Allen & Unwin, 2010.
The 'Human And Nature DYnamical' (HANDY) model is cross-disciplinary development led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharri of the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, in association with a team of natural and social scientists.
A study based on the HANDY model has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological Economics, It models past “collapses” with a view to predicting the future for Humanity (2014): “"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent… accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels… Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use… [under conditions] closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid… .[ civilization] appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature… While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support of doing nothing… Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion."
[1]. Dr Nafeez Ahmed, “NASA-funded study: industrial civilization headed for “irreversible collapse”?”, Guardian, 15 March 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists .
James Hansen is a leading US climate scientist and heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. He first warned the US Congress about the danger from man-made climate change over 20 years ago. He published “Storms of My Grandchildren” in 2009 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen ).
Dr James Hansen on being asked before the political December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference “Is there any real chance of averting the climate crisis? (2009): “Absolutely. It is possible – if we give politicians a cold, hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – "goals" for emission reductions, "offsets" that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual "cap-and-trade" mechanism – must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics as usual. Science reveals that climate is close to tipping points. It is a dead certainty that continued high emissions will create a chaotic dynamic situation for young people, with deteriorating climate conditions out of their control.Science also reveals what is needed to stabilise atmospheric composition and climate. Geophysical data on the carbon amounts in oil, gas and coal show that the problem is solvable, if we phase out global coal emissions within 20 years and prohibit emissions from unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands and oil shale. Such constraints on fossil fuels would cause carbon dioxide emissions to decline 60% by mid-century or even more if policies make it uneconomic to go after every last drop of oil. Improved forestry and agricultural practices could then bring atmospheric carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm (parts per million) or less, as required for a stable climate.Governments going to Copenhagen claim to have such goals for 2050, which they will achieve with the "cap-and-trade" mechanism. They are lying through their teeth.Unless they order Russia to leave its gas in the ground and Saudi Arabia to leave its oil in the ground (which nobody has proposed), they must phase out coal and prohibit unconventional fossil fuels.” [1].
Dr James Hansen on Earth heading to an ice-free state (2009): “If you doubled CO₂, which practically all governments assume we’re going to do, that would eventually get us to the ice-free state... We would be sending our climate back to a state we haven’t adjusted to as a species". [2].
Dr James Hansen et al (2013): “We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate data, and simple representations of the global carbon cycle and temperature to define emission reductions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous impacts on today’s young people, future generations, and nature. A cumulative industrial-era limit of ~500 GtC fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted. Cumulative emissions of ~1000 GtC, sometimes associated with 2°C global warming, would spur “slow” feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4°C with disastrous consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Responsible policymaking requires a rising price on carbon emissions that would preclude emissions from most remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase down emissions from conventional fossil fuels... Thus our objective is to define what the science indicates is needed, not to assess political feasibility. Further, it is not obvious to us that there are physical or economic limitations that prohibit fossil fuel emission targets far lower than 1000 GtC, even targets closer to 500 GtC. Indeed, we suggest that rapid transition off fossil fuels would have numerous near-term and long-term social benefits, including improved human health and outstanding potential for job creation...
McKibben [255] uses results of M2009 [Meinshausen et al] to infer allowable fossil fuel emissions up to 2050 if there is to be an 80% chance that maximum warming in the 21st century will not exceed 2°C above the pre-industrial level. M2009 conclude that staying under this 2°C limit with 80% probability requires that 2000–2049 emissions must be limited to 656 GtCO2 (179 GtC) for 2007–2049. McKibben [255] used this M2009 result to determine a remaining carbon budget (at a time not specified exactly) of 565 GtCO2 (154 GtC) if warming is to stay under 2°C. Let us update this analysis to the present: fossil fuel emissions in 2007–2012 were 51 GtC [5], so, assuming no net emissions from land use in these few years, the M2009 study implies that the remaining budget at the beginning of 2013 was 128 GtC. Thus, coincidentally, the McKibben [255] approach via M2009 yields almost exactly the same remaining carbon budget (128 GtC) as our analysis (130 GtC). However, our budget [130 x 3.67 = 477 Gt CO2-e] is that required to limit warming to about 1°C (there is a temporary maximum during this century at about 1.1–1.2°C, Fig. 9), while McKibben [255] is allowing global warming to reach 2°C, which we have concluded would be a disaster scenario! This apparently vast difference arises from three major factors…
A world summit on climate change will be held at United Nations Headquarters in September 2014 as a preliminary to negotiation of a new climate treaty in Paris in late 2015. If this treaty is analogous to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol [257], based on national targets for emission reductions and cap-and-trade-with-offsets emissions trading mechanisms, climate deterioration and gross intergenerational injustice will be practically guaranteed. The palpable danger that such an approach is conceivable is suggested by examination of proposed climate policies of even the most forward-looking of nations. Norway, which along with the other Scandinavian countries has been among the most ambitious and successful of all nations in reducing its emissions, nevertheless approves expanded oil drilling in the Arctic and development of tar sands as a majority owner of Statoil [258]–[259]. Emissions foreseen by the Energy Perspectives of Statoil [259], if they occur, would approach or exceed 1000 GtC and cause dramatic climate change that would run out of control of future generations. If, in contrast, leading nations agree in 2015 to have internal rising fees on carbon with border duties on products from nations without a carbon fee, a foundation would be established for phaseover to carbon free energies and stable climate.” [3].
James Hansen and Makiko Sato (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and 101-Nobel-Laureate Columbia University’s Earth Institute, New York) state that 2°C would be disastrous: “Global temperature in the early Pliocene [5.3-2.6 Myr ago] , when sea level was about 25 m higher than today (Dowsett et al., 1994), was only about 1°C warmer than peak Holocene temperature, thus 1-2°C warmer than recent (pre-industrial) Holocene [12,000 years ago to the present]…
The most substantial political effort to place a limit on global warming has been the European Union's target to keep global temperature from exceeding the preindustrial level by more than 2°C (European Union, 2008). This goal was later reaffirmed (European Union, 2010) and it was endorsed by a group of Nobel Laureates in the Stockholm Memo (2011). However, based on evidence presented in this paper a target of 2°C is not safe or appropriate. Global warming of 2°C would make Earth much warmer than in the Eemian, when sea level was 4-6 meters higher than today. Indeed, with global warming of 2 °C Earth would be headed back toward Pliocene-like conditions. Conceivably a 2°C target is based partly on a perception of what is politically realistic, rather than a statement of pure science. In any event, our science analysis suggests that such a target is not only unwise, but likely a disaster scenario. Detailed consideration of targets is beyond the scope of this paper, but we note that our present study is consistent with the "target CO2" analysis of Hansen et al. (2008). Those authors argued that atmospheric CO2 should be rolled back from its present ~390 ppm at least to the level of approximately 350 ppm. With other climate forcings held fixed, CO2 at 350 ppm would restore the planet's energy balance and keep human-made global warming less than 1°C” [4].
Dr James Hansen and Dr E. Rignot and 14 other colleagues in research to appear online in July 2015 in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion, an open-access journal published by the European Geosciences Union (2015): “If the ocean continues to accumulate heat and increase melting of marine-terminating ice shelves of Antarctica and Greenland, a point will be reached at which it is impossible to avoid large scale ice sheet disintegration with sea level rise of at least several meters” (reported in The Washington Post that comments: “The authors conclude that 2 degrees Celsius global warming—the widely accepted international target for how much the world should limit global warming—is “highly dangerous"… In the new study, Hansen and his colleagues suggest that the “doubling time” for ice loss from West Antarctica — the time period over which the amount of loss could double — could be as short as 10 years. In other words, a non-linear process could be at work, triggering major sea level rise in a time frame of 50 to 200 years. By contrast, Hansen and colleagues note, the IPCC assumed more of a linear process, suggesting only around 1 meter of sea level rise, at most, by 2100”) [5].
James Hansen and colleagues (2015): “There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 °C warmer than today. Human-made climate forcing is stronger and more rapid than paleo forcings, but much can be learned by combining insights from paleoclimate, climate modeling, and on-going observations. We argue that ice sheets in contact with the ocean are vulnerable to non-linear disintegration in response to ocean warming, and we posit that ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling time up to sea level rise of at least several meters. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years. Paleoclimate data reveal that subsurface ocean warming causes ice shelf melt and ice sheet discharge. Our climate model exposes amplifying feedbacks in the Southern Ocean that slow Antarctic bottom water formation and increase ocean temperature near ice shelf grounding lines, while cooling the surface ocean and increasing sea ice cover and water column stability. Ocean surface cooling, in the North Atlantic as well as the Southern Ocean, increases tropospheric horizontal temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, which drive more powerful storms. We focus attention on the Southern Ocean's role in affecting atmospheric CO2 amount, which in turn is a tight control knob on global climate. The millennial (500–2000 year) time scale of deep ocean ventilation affects the time scale for natural CO2 change, thus the time scale for paleo global climate, ice sheet and sea level changes. This millennial carbon cycle time scale should not be misinterpreted as the ice sheet time scale for response to a rapid human-made climate forcing. Recent ice sheet melt rates have a doubling time near the lower end of the 10–40 year range. We conclude that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level, which would spur more ice shelf melt, is highly dangerous. Earth's energy imbalance, which must be eliminated to stabilize climate, provides a crucial metric” [6].
[1]. James Hansen, “Copenhagen summit: Is there any real chance of averting the climate crisis?” Observer/UK Guardian, , Sunday 29 November 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/copenhagen-summit-climate-change .
[2]. James Hansen quoted in Andrew Glikson, “As emissions rise, we may be heading for an ice-free planet”, The Conversation, 18 January 2012: http://theconversation.edu.au/as-emissions-rise-we-may-be-heading-for-an-ice-free-planet-4893 .
[3]. James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Frank Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Shi-Ling Hsu, Camille Parmesan, Johan Rockstrom, Eelco J. Rohling, Jeffrey Sachs, Pete Smith, Konrad Steffen, Lise Van Susteren, Karina von Schuckmann, James C. Zachos, “Assessing “dangerous climate change”: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and Nature”, PLOS One, 8 (12), 3 December 2013: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648 .
[4]. James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato, “Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change”: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf .
[5]. Chris Mooney, “The world’s most famous climate scientist just outlined an alarming scenario for our planet’s future”, Washington Post, 20 July 2015: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/20/the-worlds-most-famous-climate-scientist-just-outlined-an-alarming-scenario-for-our-planets-future .
[6]. (Hansen, J., Sato, M., Hearty, P., Ruedy, R., Kelley, M., Masson-Delmotte, V., Russell, G., Tselioudis, G., Cao, J., Rignot, E., Velicogna, I., Kandiano, E., von Schuckmann, K., Kharecha, P., Legrande, A. N., Bauer, M., and Lo, K.-W., “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous”, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059-20179, doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-2015, 2015: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.html .
James Hansen et al, (2016): “The rapid rise of global temperature that began about 1975 continues at a mean rate of about 0.18 °C/decade, with the current annual temperature exceeding +1.25 °C relative to 1880–1920. Global temperature has just reached a level similar to the mean level in the prior interglacial (Eemian) period, when sea level was several meters higher than today, and, if it long remains at this level, slow amplifying feedbacks will lead to greater climate change and consequences. The growth rate of climate forcing due to human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs) increased over 20 % in the past decade mainly due to resurging growth of atmospheric CH4, thus making it increasingly difficult to achieve targets such as limiting global warming to 1.5 °C or reducing atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm. Such targets now require "negative emissions", i.e., extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. If rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions begins soon, most of the necessary CO2 extraction can take place via improved agricultural and forestry practices, including reforestation and steps to improve soil fertility and increase its carbon content. In this case, the magnitude and duration of global temperature excursion above the natural range of the current interglacial (Holocene) could be limited and irreversible climate impacts could be minimized. In contrast, continued high fossil fuel emissions by the current generation would place a burden on young people to undertake massive technological CO2 extraction, if they are to limit climate change. Proposed methods of extraction such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or air capture of CO2 imply minimal estimated costs of 104–570 trillion dollars this century, with large risks and uncertain feasibility. Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, possibly implausible cleanup or growing deleterious climate impacts or both, scenarios that should provide both incentive and obligation for governments to alter energy policies without further delay” (Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., von Schuckmann, K., Beerling, D. J., Cao, J., Marcott, S., Masson-Delmotte, V., Prather, M. J., Rohling, E. J., Shakun, J., and Smith, P.: Young People's Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions, Earth Syst. Dynam., 2016: http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2016-42/ ).
James Hansen et al. (2016): “This paleo-millennial timescale should not be misinterpreted as the timescale for ice sheet response to a rapid, large, human-made climate forcing. These climate feedbacks aid interpretation of events late in the prior interglacial, when sea level rose to +6–9 m with evidence of extreme storms while Earth was less than 1C warmer than today. Ice melt cooling of the North Atlantic and Southern oceans increases atmospheric temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, thus driving more powerful storms. The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and ongoing observations together imply that 2C global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous. Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) non-linearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years” (James Hansen et al., “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observation that 2 degree C global warming could be dangerous”, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3761–3812, 2016: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf ).
James Hansen (2018): “Earth is now substantially out of energy balance. The amount of solar energy that Earth absorbs exceeds the energy radiated back to space. The principal manifestations of this energy imbalance are continued global warming on decadal time scales and continued increase in ocean heat content. Quantitative understanding of Earth’s energy imbalance has improved over the past decade. The upper two kilometers of the ocean, where most of the excess energy is stored, has been well-monitored by the international Argo floats program since 2005. Over the full solar cycle 2005-2016 Earth’s energy imbalance is 0.75 ± 0.25 W/m2 . The range 0.5 to 1 W/m2 is substantial. For example, in order to restore Earth’s energy balance by reducing atmospheric CO2, which is the principal cause of the imbalance, CO2 would need to be reduced from its 2018 407 amount to 373 ppm if the imbalance is 0.50 W/m2, but to 342 ppm if the imbalance is 1 W/m2 . In reality CO2 is not only continuing to increase, its rate of growth is increasing. The reason is that global population and energy demands continue to increase, and about 85 percent of global energy is provided by fossil fuels…
Sea level reached heights as great as 6-9 meters during the prior interglacial period, the Eemian about 120,000 years ago, when global temperature was only about 1°C above the pre-industrial level, i.e., similar to today’s global temperature. During the early Pliocene, several million years ago, when global temperature was at most about 3°C warmer than pre-industrial conditions, sea level probably reached as high as 15-25 meters above today’s level. In other words, there is plenty of vulnerable ice available to cause eventual sea level rise that would inundate today’s coastal cities, in response to a warming level that we could produce this century. Burning all of the readily available fossil fuels would eventually melt almost all the ice on the planet, raising sea level 65-75 meters (more than 300 feet)…
How much CO2 must be extracted from the air today to offset the excess growth of greenhouse gas forcing in a single year, i.e., to reduce climate forcing by 0.015 W/m2? Atmospheric CO2 must be reduced almost exactly 1 ppm CO2 to increase heat radiation to space by 0.015 W/m2. [We actually need to suck more than 1 ppm from the air, because the ocean reacts to the reduction of atmospheric CO2 by increasing the net backflux of CO2 to the atmosphere. However, we can make our point without including this added difficulty in achieving CO2 drawdown.] One ppm of CO2 is 2.12 billion tons of carbon or about 7.77 billion tons of CO2. Recently Keith et al.(2018) achieved a cost breakthrough in carbon capture, demonstrated with a pilot plant in Canada. Cost of carbon capture, not including the cost of transportation and storage of the CO2, is $113-232 per ton of CO2. Thus the cost of extracting 1 ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere is $878-1803 billion” (James Hansen, “Climate change in a nutshell: the gathering storm”, Columbia University, 18 December 2018: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181206_Nutshell.pdf ).
Sheik Hasina (born 28 September 1947) iscurrently Prime Minister of Bangladesh. She has been the President of the Bangladesh Awami League since 1981. She is the eldest of five children of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding father and first president of Bangladesh and widow of nuclear scientist, M. A. Wazed Miah (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Hasina ).
Bangladesh's Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (in response to the DARA 2012 report warning that world's poorest nations are the most vulnerable as they face increased risk of drought, water shortages, crop failure, poverty and diseas, and that on average, they could see an 11 percent loss in GDP by 2030 due to climate change): "One degree Celsius rise in temperature is associated with 10 percent productivity loss in farming. For us, it means losing about 4 million metric tonnes of food grain, amounting to about $2.5 billion. That is about 2 percent of our GDP. Adding up the damages to property and other losses, we are faced with a total loss of about 3-4 percent of GDP." [1]
[1]. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina quoted by Reuters, ”100 mln to die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate”, 28 September 2012: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/climate-inaction-idINDEE88P05P20120926 .
Stephen Hawking (eminent theoretical physicist and cosmologist) addressing the question “Will we survive on Earth?”(2018): “In January 2018, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a journal founded by some of the physicists who had worked on the Manhattan Project to produce the first atomic weapons, moved the Doomsday Clock, their measurement of the imminence if catastrophe – military or environmental – facing our planet, forward to two minutes to midnight… In 1947, the clock was set at seven minutes to midnight. It is now closer to Doomsday than at any time since then, save in the early 1950s at the start of the Cold War… We see great peril if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change” (Stephen Hawking, “Brief Answers to the Big Questions”, John Murray, 2018, Chapter 7).
Stephen Hawking (2016): “A more immediate danger [than Trump] is runaway climate change. A rise in ocean temperature would melt the ice-caps, and cause a release of large amounts of carbon dioxide from the ocean floor. Both effects could make our climate like that of Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees” (Emily Atkin, “The media is ignoring the most important part of Stephen Hawking’s comments on Trump”, Altimarius, 31 May 2016: http://altmarius.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-media-is-ignoring-the-most-important-part-of-stephen-hawking- ).
Dr Ed Hawkins (Climate scientist, National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS), University of Reading, UK) has generated an animated spiral graphic of monthly HadCRUT4.4 global temperature anomaly data from January 1850 – March 2016, relative to the mean of 1850-1900. We are spiralling towards the plus 1.5C limit and hence to the plus 2C limit set by the Paris Agreement (Ed Hawkins, “Spiralling global temperatures”, Climate Lab Book, Open Climate Science, 9 May 2016: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/spiralling-global-temperatures/ ; see also Andrea Thompson, “See Earth’s temperature rise spiral toward 2C rise- graphic”, Guardian, 10 May 2016: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/see-earths-temperature-spiral-toward-2c-rise-graphic ).
HAYES, Christopher. MSNBC host compares the $10 trillion cost of abolishing slavery in 1865 with the $10 trillion cost of keeping 88% of fossil fuel reserves in the ground.
Christopher Hayes, according to Wikipedia: “Christopher L. "Chris" Hayes (born February 28, 1979)[1] is an American political commentator. Hayes hosts All In with Chris Hayes, a weekday news and opinion television show on MSNBC. Hayes formerly hosted a weekend MSNBC show, Up with Chris Hayes” (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hayes_%28journalist%29 ).
Christopher Hayes on forcing fossil fuel companies to keep 88% their resources in the ground and comparing this $10 trillion cost with the $10 trillion worth of slaves in 1865: “The Carbon Tracker Initiative, a consortium of financial analysts and environmentalists, set out to tally the amount of carbon contained in the proven fossil fuel reserves of the world’s energy companies and major fossil fuel–producing countries. That is, the total amount of carbon we know is in the ground that we can, with present technology, extract, burn and put into the atmosphere. The number that the Carbon Tracker Initiative came up with is… 2,795 gigatons. Which means the total amount of known, proven extractable fossil fuel in the ground at this very moment is almost five times the amount we can safely burn.Proceeding from this fact, McKibben leads us inexorably to the staggering conclusion that the work of the climate movement is to find a way to force the powers that be, from the government of Saudi Arabia to the board and shareholders of ExxonMobil, to leave 80 percent of the carbon they have claims on in the ground. That stuff you own, that property you’re counting on and pricing into your stocks? You can’t have it. Given the fluctuations of fuel prices, it’s a bit tricky to put an exact price tag on how much money all that unexcavated carbon would be worth, but one financial analyst puts the price at somewhere in the ballpark of $20 trillion. So in order to preserve a roughly habitable planet, we somehow need to convince or coerce the world’s most profitable corporations and the nations that partner with them to walk away from $20 trillion of wealth. Since all of these numbers are fairly complex estimates, let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that we’ve overestimated the total amount of carbon and attendant cost by a factor of 2. Let’s say that it’s just $10 trillion. The last time in American history that some powerful set of interests relinquished its claim on $10 trillion of wealth was in 1865—and then only after four years and more than 600,000 lives lost in the bloodiest, most horrific war we’ve ever fought… In fact, in certain climate and investment circles, people have begun to talk about “stranded assets”—that is, the risk that either national or global carbon-pricing regimes will make the extraction of some of the current reserves uneconomical. Recently, shareholders pushed ExxonMobil to start reporting on its exposure to the risk of stranded assets, which was a crucial first step, though the report itself was best summarized by McKibben as saying, basically, “We plan on overheating the planet, we don’t think any government will stop us, we dare you to try.” That is the current stance of the fossil fuel companies: “It’s our property, and we’re gonna extract, sell and burn all of it. What are you gonna do about it?” Those people you see getting arrested outside the White House protesting Keystone XL, showing up at shareholder meetings and sitting in on campuses to get their schools to divest are doing something about it. They are attacking the one weak link in the chain of doom that is our fossil fuel economy. As the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” What the climate justice movement is demanding is the ultimate abolition of fossil fuels. And our fates all depend on whether they succeed.”
Christopher Hayes, “The New Abolitionism. Averting planetary disaster will mean forcing fossil fuel companies to give up at least $10 trillion in wealth”, The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/article/179461/new-abolitionism?page=full# .
Richard Heinberg (climate change activist and author of 13 books, most recently “ Our Renewable Future: Laying the Path for One Hundred Percent Clean Energy”, co-authored with David Fridley , 2016) on the worsening Biosphere disaster effectively largely ignored by Business As Usual (BAU) Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the US Presidential race (2016): “But here’s the real deal: a few generations ago we started using fossil fuels for energy; the result was an explosion of production and consumption, which (as a byproduct) enabled enormous and rapid increase in human population. Burning all that coal, oil, and natural gas made a few people very rich and enabled a lot more people to enjoy middle-class lifestyles. But it also polluted air, water, and soil, and released so much carbon dioxide that the planet’s climate is now going haywire. Due to large-scale industrial agriculture, topsoil is disappearing at a rate of 25 billion tons a year; at the same time, expanded population and land use is driving thousands, maybe millions of species of plants and animals to extinction… Could “we the people” handle a bit more of the truth? One would certainly like to think so. As it is, the US and the rest of the world appear to be sleepwalking into history’s greatest shitstorm (a somewhat more geeky and less scatological way to describe it would be as the mother of all Dragon Kings ). Regardless how we address the challenges of climate change, resource depletion, overpopulation, debt deflation, species extinctions, ocean death, and on and on, we’re in for one hell of a century. It’s simply too late for a soft landing (Richard Heinberg, “You can’t handle the truth”, Countercurrents, 2 August 2016: http://www.countercurrents.org/2016/08/02/you-cant-handle-the-truth/ ).
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, leading coral expert and WWF “Lights out for the reef” co-author) (2014): “[ current climate trends signal] “game over” [for the Great Barrier Reef]. Corals can exist in temperatures 1C higher than the current summer maximum, but beyond that you get coral bleaching and mass mortality. Beyond 2C, you don’t really have coral dominated reefs anymore and there’s evidence that 1.5C is beyond the limits too…Even under the best-case scenario of 2C, corals disappear. But with business as usual [4C], it’s game over. You look in the [experimental research] tank and the corals have died, bacteria have taken over, the sand has dissolved. It’s a very, very poor place. If you were to replicate that on the Great Barrier Reef, it would hardly be worthy of the word ‘great’. It simply won’t be a coral reef. Corals have adapted in the past to temperature change, but the problem is that we are pushing the oceans through such a rapid temperature change that the corals are getting left behind… The current administration in Australia is not taking the issue seriously and it’ll cost the people of Australia in the future. There isn’t really another option here. If we don’t want global calamity, we need to choose a pathway that decarbonises our society.” [1]
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg on the 2C temperature rise threat to Great Barrier Reef (2014): “The great barrier reef is precious to everyone. Not only is it a wellspring of marine life, it is also a favourite holiday destination , a powerful generator of jobs and one of the most prominent national icons. Its sheer size and complexity make it an essential part of the earth’s biosphere...
While the news on local threats to the reef [agricultural run-off, dredging for coal ports, coal shipping] is in itself of enormous concern, the future of the Great Barrier Reef is even bleaker when climate change and ocean acidification are considered. The scientific consensus has concluded that further increases in CO2 and average global temperature are almost certain to destroy the coral communities of the Great Barrier Reef for hundreds if not thousands of years. And without the coral, you don’t have the fish, and without the fish and coral you don’t have the billion dollar tourism industry It is highly unlikely that coral reefs will survive for more than a 2 degree increase in average global temperature relative to pre-industrial levels. But, if the current trajectory of carbon pollution levels continues unchecked , the world is on track for at least three degrees of warming. The prospect of losing our Great Barrier Reef surely demands more attention from us all. As we fail to take action on climate change and ocean acidification, we risk pushing the Great Barrier Reef closer to the point of no return. Each tiny upward step in average global; temperature brings us ever closer to that final point where it will be too late to save the reef...
This Saturday 29 March, I will participate in Earth Hour to make a stand for our Reef. By taking part in Earth Hour we can all build momentum towards action on climate change to help avoid a “lights out” moment for our previous and irreplaceable Great Barrier Reef”. [2].
Coral scientists Dr Selina Ward and Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg on the imminent 2C temperature rise threat to the survival of coral worldwide and of the Great Barrier Reef (2014): “An ongoing experiment conducted by The University of Queensland at Heron Island examining how future levels of climate change and associated ocean acidification will affect reefs has found it is likely that corals cannot survive more than a 2 degree average global temperature increase over pre-industrial levels before coral is no longer able to replace itself faster than coral bleaching will destroy it. If current levels of carbon pollution continue unchecked, the world is on track for at least three degrees of global average warming. Ocean acidification can also affect the ability of very young fish to avoid predators, to navigate effectively and recognize parent fish, ultimately affecting their ability to survive. Climate change causes warmer ocean temperatures as well as warmer air temperatures. Ninety per cent of the extra heat generated by climate change has gone into the ocean, leading to dramatic increases in the upper 700 metres of sea water around the planet. Coral bleaching occurs when coral gets too warm, and leads to coral dying in greater numbers than would otherwise have occurred. Coral bleaching in not known to have occurred before 1979 but is now a serious threat to the viability of coral reef ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef. The action that Australia and world governments take on climate change in the next few years will determine the fate of the Great Barrier Reef. This is the critical decade to avoid climate change tipping points. Helping save the reef is [one] of the many reasons Australia has to set stronger targets to reduce carbon pollution and make the transition to from fossil fuels to renewable energy” (see Dr Selina Ward, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg [1].
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (a leading coral expert and Director, Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland, Australia) (2015): “A paper published today in Science (on which I am one of the authors) has issued a warning that our window of opportunity to save the oceans from major changes is in danger of slamming shut, bringing with it the risk that we will encounter planetary-scale tipping points in the behaviour of the climate... Analysis of the world’s “carbon budget” … suggest that we can emit about another 500-800 billion tonnes (gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide before we push global temperatures beyond 2C above the pre-industrial average. This gives us about 20 years before net global emissions have to fall to zero – a tall order indeed… Yet here is a sobering calculation: imagine that the rest of the world falls into line with the US and Chinese climate targets. How much of the world’s budget would we burn? The answer would be that the world had emitted 1,400 gigatonnes of CO2, or 175-280% of our remaining budget, dragging average global warming to 3C and beyond (see the orange line on the graph below). This would be disastrous for us and our children, and many of the benefits of our oceans (coral reefs, fisheries, coastal living) would be transformed beyond recognition” (see Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, “New report: the chance to rescue the world’s oceans from climate change is drifting away”, The Conversation, 3 July 2015: https://theconversation.com/new-report-the-chance-to-rescue-the-worlds-oceans-from-climate-change-is-drifting-away-43257?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+July+3+2015+-+3056&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+July+3+2015+-+3056+CID_7899e5a53f02857a4eb45113786feca3&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=writes ).
[Editor note: Yet climate criminal Australia has a dominant bipartisan Lib-Lab (Liberal -Laboral, Coalition Government-Labor Opposition) policy of a derisory 5% off 2000 greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 2020 and unlimited coal, gas and iron ore exports that is set to exceed the world’s terminal carbon pollution budget for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2C temperature rise by a factor of three (3).
From Treasury, ABARE, and US EIA data and assuming an 11% annual growth in iron ore exports, 2.4% annual growth in coal exports and 9% annual growth in gas exports, Australia’s Domestic and Exported greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is as follows (million tonnes CO2-e or Mt CO2-e). The 2020 projections are based on fossil fuel combustion and ignore ignore fugitive emissions due leakage of gas (mainly methane, CH4) from coal mines and in coal-seam gas (CSG) production (see “2011 climate change coursed”, section G: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course ).
2000: 565 (Domestic) + 505 (coal exports) + 17 (LNG exports) + 105 (iron ore exports) = 1,192.
2009: 600 (Domestic) + 784 (coal exports) + 31 (LNG exports) + 97 (iron ore exports) = 1,512.
2010: 578 (Domestic) + 803 (coal exports) + 34 (LNG exports) + 293 (iron ore exports) = 1,708.
2020: 621 (Domestic) + 1,039 (black coal exports) + 80 (LNG exports) + 59 (brown coal exports) + 772 (iron ore exports) = 2,571.
Lib-Lab Business As Usual threatens the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, our children and grandchildren, Humanity and the biosphere.
Decent pro-Humanity Australians and pro-Humanity people worldwide will vote 1 Green and put the corporatists last.]
[1]. Oliver Milman, “Great Barrier Reef damage “irreversible” unless radical action taken” [University of Queensland researcher says unless temperature rise is kept below 2C, reef will cease to be coral ecosystem], Guardian, 6 March 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/06/great-barrier-reef-damage-irreversible-unless-radical-action-taken .
[2]. Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg in Foreward to Dr Selina Ward, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg [preface by Anna Rose], “Lights out for the reef”, prepared for Earth Hour 2014 [Saturday 29 March], WWF: http://earthhour.org.au/LIGHTS_OUT_FOR_THE_REEF_Earth_Hour_2014.pdf .
David R. Hoffman (Legal Editor of Pravda.Report): “People who voted for or supported Trump “punched their one way tickets to hell.” While such votes or support stand on their own as an unforgivable evil, they also represent a mindset that creates one of the greatest threats to humanity. We are at a point in history where advances in chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry can destroy the world, and where the extinction of species and ravaging of the environment is increasing at an alarming rate. All it will take is just one time, just one foolish decision, just one broken link on the food chain that is ultimately one too many, and the ascendancy of that one “leader” recklessly given power to set these apocalyptic events into motion” (David R. Hoffman, “The unforgivable evil”, Bellaciao, 25 March 2017: https://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article23595 ).
Dr. Robert Holmes ( earth system scientist at Woods Hole Research Center who studies rivers and their watersheds and how climate change and other disturbances are impacting the cycles of water and chemicals in the environment and the fate of the vast quantities of ancient carbon locked in permafrost in the Arctic, which may be released as permafrost thaws, exacerbating global warming) (2015): “It’s essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming. If they don’t, I suspect that down the road we’ll all be looking at the 2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror” (John Abraham, “Methane release from melting permafrost could trigger dangerous global warming”, Guardian, 13 October 2015: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/13/methane-release-from-melting-permafrost-could-trigger-dangerous-global-warming ).
Dr Chris Hope (BA (Univ. of Oxford), MA, PhD (Univ. of Cambridge), is Reader in Policy Modelling, Fellow of Clare Hall, Cambridge Judge Business School, [89 Nobel Laureate] University of Cambridge. In his own words; “Dr Hope was the specialist advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs Inquiry into aspects of the economics of climate change, and an advisor on the PAGE model to the Stern review on the Economics of Climate Change. He has published extensively in books and peer-reviewed journals. He has recently completed PAGE09, the latest version of the PAGE integrated assessment model… Dr Hope previously lectured at the Department of Fuel and Energy, University of Leeds, from 1983-1986… Dr Hope previously lectured at the Department of Fuel and Energy, University of Leeds, from 1983-1986… A lead author and review editor for the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded a half share of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2007, Faculty Lifetime Achievement Award from the European Academy of Business in Society and the Aspen Institute, 2007… Research interests numerical information in public policy; policy analysis of the greenhouse effect; the integrated assessment modelling of climate change” (see: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/research/faculty/hopec.html ).
Dr Chris Hope and colleagues on the threat of 50Gt methane from East Siberian Arctic Shelf: (2013): “Economic time bomb. As the amount of Arctic sea ice declines at an unprecedented rate, the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates, exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly. Higher methane concentrations in the atmosphere will accelerate global warming and hasten local changes in the Arctic, speeding up sea-ice retreat, reducing the reflection of solar energy and accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The ramifications will be felt far from the poles… To quantify the effects of Arctic methane release on the global economy, we used PAGE09. This integrated assessment model calculates the impacts of climate change and the costs of mitigation and adaptation measures… The methane pulse will bring forward by 15–35 years the average date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2°C above pre-industrial levels — to 2035 for the business-as-usual scenario and to 2040 for the low-emissions case (see 'Arctic methane'). This will lead to an extra $60 trillion (net present value) of mean climate-change impacts for the scenario with no mitigation, or 15% of the mean total predicted cost of climate-change impacts (about $400 trillion)." [1].
[Editor’s note: The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 on a 20 year time frame and with aerosol impacts considered is 105 times that of CO2 [2, 3]. The German WBGU (2009) and the Australian Climate Commission (2013) have estimated that no more than 600 billion tonnes of CO2 can be emitted between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050 if the world is to have a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2C temperature rise [4, 5]. The 50 Gt (billion tonnes) CH4 in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is thus equivalent to 50 billion tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes CO2-equivalent/tonne CH4 = 5,250 tonnes CO2-e or about NINE(9) times more than the world’s terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution budget. We are doomed unless we can stop this Arcic CH4 release.]
[1]. Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams, “Vast costs of Arctic change”, Nature, 499, 25 July 2013: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/499401a.html .
[2]. Drew T. Shindell , Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”, Science, 30 October 2009:
Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716 .
[3]. Shindell et al (2009), Fig.2: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only .
[4]. WBGU, “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach”: http://www.ecoequity.org/2009/10/solving-the-climate-dilemma-the-budget-approach/ .
[5]. Australian Climate Commission, “The critical decade 2013: a summary of climate change science, risks and responses”, 2013, p7: http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/The-Critical-Decade-2013-Summary_lowres.pdf .
Dr Chris Hope (2011): "If the best current scientific and economic evidence is to be believed, and climate change could be a real and serious problem, the appropriate response is to institute today a climate change tax equal to the mean estimate of the damage caused by a tonne of CO2 emissions. The raw calculations from the default PA GE09 model suggest the tax should be about $100 per tonne of CO2 in the EU. But correcting for the limited time horizon of the model, and bringing the calculations forward to 2102, in year 2012 dollars, brings the suggested tax up to about $150 per tonne of CO2.
There are good arguments for setting the initial tax at about $250 per tonne of CO2 in the US, while starting off at a much lower
level, maybe $15 per tonne of CO2, in the poorest regions of the world, all in the year 2012, in year 2012 dollars.
That such policy advice would not pass the laugh test [if it can be carried out without laughing about it], particularly in the US, shows that the rhetoric about getting to grips with climate change has not been seriously thought through to its logical conclusion. As a result, rather than falling, greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise (Le Quere et al, 2009). A fiscally neutral significant climate change tax is the best chance we have of bringing the climate change problem under control” (Chris Hope, “How high should climate change taxes be?”, Working Paper Series, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, 9.2011: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/media/assets/wp1109.pdf ).
The damage-related Carbon Price is $150 per t CO2-e i.e. ($150/t CO2-e) x (1 t thermal coal/2.9 t CO2) = $51.7 per t thermal coal (see Dr Chris Hope, “How high should climate change taxes be?”, Working Paper Series, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, 9.2011: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/media/assets/wp1109.pdf ).
Thus for every $1 received by a typically foreign-owned, tax-avoiding mining company for Australian coal , Australians as the primary producer will be obligated to pay $150/$51.7 = $2.9 or about $3 for repairing the global consequences of pollution of the atmosphere and ocean with CO2 ].
Saleemul Huq (director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh) (2017): “The consequences of failing to keep the temperature below 1.5C will be to wilfully condemn hundreds of millions of the poorest citizens of Earth to certain deaths from the severe impacts of climate change” (Andrew Simms, “”A cat in hell’s chance” – why we’re losing the battle to keep global warming below 2C”, Guardian, 19 January 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/cat-in-hells-chance-why-losing-battle-keep-global-warming-2c-climate-change ).
Saleemul Huq (leading climate expert and a co-author of a number of Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports) on Australia’s “criminal government” and the “the catastrophic 2019-2020 Australian bushfires [2020): This is not contrasted at all, in the first place. We the scientists of Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been warning over and over again about this fallout. It fell into deaf ears. The Australian government walked the opposite way. They went into a spree of coal mines, and burning fossil fuels. And they stopped donating money to the global climate fund. Now, this is what is happening. Australia is facing the consequences in January of 2020. This is a criminal government. The prime minister of Australia, Scott Morrison is responsible for all this… We are one of the most climate-vulnerable countries. We will have to face huge floods, mighty cyclonic storms. Not the southern parts only, the whole country will be affected. Our north-eastern haors [NE Bangladesh wetland depression ecosystems] will be flooded, while the Barendra area will endure severe drought… But after Donald Trump became US president, he pulled out of the agreement, followed by Australia, Brazil, and others. When we last met in Madrid, they said they don't want to remain inside the agreement. Now Modi is also following their footsteps. China is not with them, thankfully… There is no denying that we have crossed the 2 degrees Celsius rise in temperature above the pre-industrial level and we are heading towards 3 degrees Celsius. It's kind of irreversible. But again, my answer is, not enough is not an option. You have to do it anyway. An increase of 4 degrees Celsius temperature will be catastrophic for the Earth. What we are seeing in Australia is a reckoning of a 3-degree increase catastrophe. Everything is happening as predicted 20 years back. In fact, things are happening faster than it was predicted. We cannot sit idle” (Saleemul Huq in interview in Shibabrata Barman, “”Climate change is happening faster than it was predicted””, Business Standard, 22 January 2020: https://tbsnews.net/interviews/climate-change-happening-faster-it-was-predicted-38381?fbclid=IwAR35vpoLFdwzOT6dserVNDga9e0Pn0vrDvY_8BKXfHQ3FwE0MVfgVNqjLmI ).
The International Energy Agency (IEA) in its own words: “The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an autonomous organisation which works to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member countries and beyond. Founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis, the IEA’s initial role was to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply through the release of emergency oil stocks to the markets. While this continues to be a key aspect of its work, the IEA has evolved and expanded. It is at the heart of global dialogue on energy, providing authoritative and unbiased research, statistics, analysis and recommendations”. The IEA publishes an annual World Energy Outlook series (see: http://www.iea.org/about/index.asp ).
Press release by the IEA on the 2011 World Energy Outlook (WEO) report (2011): “Without a bold change of policy direction, the world will lock itself into an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system, the International Energy Agency warned as it launched the 2011 edition of the World Energy Outlook (WEO). The agency's flagship publication, released today in London, said there is still time to act, but the window of opportunity is closing… The WEO presents a 450 Scenario, which traces an energy path consistent with meeting the globally agreed goal of limiting the temperature rise to 2°C. Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted to 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already locked-in by existing capital stock, including power stations, buildings and factories. Without further action by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place would generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.” [1].
[1]. IEA, “The world is locking itself into an unsustainable energy future which would have far-reaching consequences, IEA warns in its latest World Energy Outlook”, IEA Press release, 9 November 2011: http://www.iea.org/pres/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=426 .
Leopold Infeld (Polish physicist and mathematician who collaborated with Einstein on relativity and Born on quantum mechanics) co-signed the Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with 10 other eminent scientists (all but Infeld were or became Nobel Laureates) that called for “an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons” and concluded with the resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.” (The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955): http://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/ ).
The IPCC is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has released a succession of 5 key reports, the latest being the Fifth Assessment Report, AR5 (2013).
The IPCC, “Climate Change 2014 [AR5] Synthesis Report, Approved Summary for Policy Makers”, 1 November 2014: " 4.4 Emissions ranges for baseline scenarios and mitigation scenarios that limit greenhouse gas concentrations to low levels (about 450 ppm CO2-eq, likely to limit warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels) are shown for different sectors and gases in Figure SPM.14. Key measures to achieve such mitigation goals include decarbonizing (i.e., reducing the carbon intensity of) electricity generation (medium evidence, high agreement) as well as efficiency enhancements and behavioral changes, in order to reduce energy demand compared to baseline scenarios without compromising development (robust evidence, high agreement). In scenarios [RP2.6] reaching 450 ppm CO2-eq concentrations by 2100, global CO2 emissions from the energy supply sector are projected to decline over the next decade and are characterized by reductions of 90% or more below 2010 levels between 2040 and 2070. In the majority of low‐concentration stabilization scenarios (about 450 to about 500 ppm CO2-eq, at least as likely as not to limit warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels), the share of low‐carbon electricity supply (comprising renewable energy (RE), nuclear and CCS [as yet notional carbon capture and storage] , including BECCS) increases from the current share of approximately 30% to more than 80% by 2050, and fossil fuel power generation without CCS is phased out almost entirely by 2100” (The IPCC, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, Approved Summary for Policy Makers”, 1 November 2014: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf ).
IPCC (2007): "If warming is not kept below two degrees centigrade, which will require the strongest mitigation efforts, and currently looks very unlikely to be achieved, the substantial global impacts will occur, such as species extinctions, and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger, flooding" (IPCC 2007 report quoted in Cahal Milmo, ““Too late to avoid global warming”, say scientists”, The Independent, 19 September 2007: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/too-late-to-avoid-global-warming-say-scientists-402800.html ).
[Editor’s note: The international consensus basis of the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers (2014) has resulted in a report that softens the present acute seriousness of unaddressed man-made climate change. Thus the IPCC Summary argues for a limitation of temperature rise to 2oC through limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution of the atmosphere to 450 ppm CO2-equivalent - "about 450 ppm CO2-eq, likely to limit warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels" - but hard evidence says that we have already reached 485 ppm CO2-equivalent (2015), that 2oC is dangerous and essentially inevitable, and that the world will use up its Carbon Budget for avoiding 2oC within about 4 years; see Gideon Polya, “International consensus-based IPCC Summary For Policymakers (2014) downplays acute seriousness of Climate Crisis”, Countercurrents, 12 November, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya121114.htm ].
IPCC (2018): “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. Effects of a temperature overshoot are reversible for Arctic sea ice cover on decadal time scales (high confidence)…
B4.2. Global warming of 1.5°C is projected to shift the ranges of many marine species, to higher latitudes as well as increase the amount of damage to many ecosystems. It is also expected to drive the loss of coastal resources, and reduce the productivity of fisheries and aquaculture (especially at low latitudes). The risks of climate-induced impacts are projected to be higher at 2°C than those at global warming of 1.5°C (high confidence). Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a further 70–90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2ºC (very high confidence). The risk of irreversible loss of many marine and coastal ecosystems increases with global warming, especially at 2°C or more (high confidence)…
B5. 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…
C1.3. Limiting global warming requires limiting the total cumulative global anthropogenic emissions of CO2 since the preindustrial period, i.e. staying within a total carbon budget (high confidence). By the end of 2017, anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the preindustrial period are estimated to have reduced the total carbon budget for 1.5°C by approximately 2200 ± 320 GtCO2 (medium confidence). The associated remaining budget is being depleted by current emissions of 42 ± 3 GtCO2 per year (high confidence). The choice of the measure of global temperature affects the estimated remaining carbon budget. Using global mean surface air temperature, as in AR5, gives an estimate of the remaining carbon budget of 580 GtCO2 for a 50% probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 420 GtCO2 for a 66% probability (medium confidence) [i.e. this carbon budget for 66% chance of avoiding +1.5C used up in 10 years]…
C2.2. In electricity generation, shares of nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) are modelled to increase in most 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot. In modelled 1.5°C pathways with limited or no overshoot, the use of CCS would allow the electricity generation share of gas to be approximately 8% (3–11% interquartile range) of global electricity in 2050, while the use of coal shows a steep reduction in all pathways and would be reduced to close to 0% (0–2%) of electricity (high confidence)…
C3. All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100–1000 GtCO2 over the 21st century. CDR would be used to compensate for residual emissions and, in most cases, achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence)…
D5.3.Global model pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C are projected to involve the annual average investment needs in the energy system of around 2.4 trillion USD2010 between 2016 and 2035 representing about 2.5% of the world GDP (medium confidence)” (IPCC, “Global warming of 1.5 °C”, 8 October 2018: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ ; IPCC, “Global warming of 1.5 °C. Summary for Policymakers”, 8 October 2018: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf ; Gideon Polya, “IPCC 1.5C avoidance report: effectively too late, but stop coal burning for “less bad” catastrophes”, Countercurrents, 12 October 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/10/12/ipcc-1-5c-avoidance-report-effectively-too-late-but-stop-coal-burning-for-less-bad-catastrophes/ )
John James (climate change activist) (2014): “For a long time scientists have been concerned that there would be a sudden eruption of methane from melting permafrost and from deep clathrate structures under the ocean. This has happened in the past in enormous eruptions. Each has been many times larger than the sum of all the pollutants we have emitted over the past couple of centuries.On at least eleven occasions in the geological past there have been sudden bursts of methane, and each time they have within a few years rocketed the Earth’s temperature by many degrees. Recent research has shown that on one occasion it took only thirteen years to raise the Earth’s temperature by 5oC.1 The trigger for the methane has been the CO2. Such a temperature rise could eliminate our species. We have to act quickly to limit fossil fuel use, or sit back and wait for armageddon to strike when it will. As you will read, this could be very soon… There are such vast quantities of methane locked in permafrost and clathrates that if just one percent was released it would have the same greenhouse impact as all the carbon dioxide released this century. As above figure 7 shows, the total methane burden in the atmosphere now is 5 Gt. Over half of that has been added since the 1750s. The most recent estimate for the amount of carbon stored in hydrates around the world is 63,400 Gigatons.11 The Siberian Arctic shelf alone holds some 1700 Gt. A whopping 50 Gt of this is ready for abrupt release at any time, as mentioned above” (John James, “Methane, the Gakkel Ridge and human survival”, Planet Extinction, 2014: http://www.planetextinction.com/documents/Methane,%20the%20Gakkel%20Ridge%20and%20human%20survival.pdf ).
Michel Jarraud (Secretary-General of the UN World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) since 2004) (2014): “We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board. We are running out of time.Things will only get worse.Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification. Tthe laws of physics are non-negotiable." [1].
Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have grown at their fastest rate since 1984.
Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide broke fresh records in 2013.
Carbon dioxide levels soared to 142 per cent of pre-industrial levels.
Radiative forcing, or warming effect from greenhouse gases increased 34 per cent from 1990 to 2013.
Current ocean acidification levels unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years.
[1]. “Greenhouse gas levels in atmosphere surge to new high: UN”, ABC News, 10 September 2014: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-10/greenhoues-gas-emissions-hit-new-highs3a-un/5732244 .
Johnstone (UK socialist and activist) on system change to avert climate genocide (2011): “Yet it [terracide] needn't be. An Australian engineering team called Beyond Zero Emissions has released its 5 year study that shows how Australia can have 100% renewable energy by 2020 using renewable technologies of wind power and concentrated solar thermal with molten salts energy storage for 24/7, baseload operation. Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford University, California, and Mark A. Delucchi of University of California Davis have produced a plan for 100% renewable energy plan for the whole world by 2020. “James Hansen in answer to the question “Is there any real chance of averting the climate crisis?”, has stated: “Absolutely. It is possible – if we give politicians a cold, hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – 'goals' for emission reductions, 'offsets' that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual 'cap-and-trade' mechanism – must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics as usual.” Capitalism denies - or through resolute inaction effectively denies - the acute problem of man-made climate change. Capitalism – that brought us wars and holocausts – has been unable or unwilling to address man-made climate change and now threatens a climate genocide. It must be system change, not climate change” (A. Johnstone, “Climate Genocide: 10 billion people set to die this century”, Socialism or Your Money Back, 20 February 2011: https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/climate-genocide-10-billion-people-set.html ).
Frederic Joliot-Curie (French physicist, husband of Irène Joliot-Curie, daughter of Marie Curie, and 1935 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry with Irène Joliot-Curie for discovery of generation of radioactive nuclides) co-signed the Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with 10 other eminent scientists (all but Infeld were or became Nobel Laureates) that called for “an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons” and concluded with the resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.” (The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955): http://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/ ).
Dr Ian Joughin is a glaciologist at the University of Washington (UW), Seattle, Washinton, USA (see: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapsing ).
Dr Ian Joughin et al. re the West Antarctica ice sheet collapse, of which the early-stage collapse is already underway (2014): “Abstract. Resting atop a deep marine basin, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has long been considered prone to instability. Using a numerical model, we investigated the sensitivity of Thwaites Glacier to ocean melt and whether its unstable retreat is already under way. Our model reproduces observed losses when forced with ocean melt comparable to estimates. Simulated losses are moderate (<0.25 mm per year at sea level) over the 21st century but generally increase thereafter. Except possibly for the lowest-melt scenario, the simulations indicate that early-stage collapse has begun. Less certain is the time scale, with the onset of rapid (>1 mm per year of sea-level rise) collapse in the different simulations within the range of 200 to 900 years.” [1]..
[1]. Ian Joughin, Benjamin E. Smith, Brooke Medley, “Marine ice sheet collapse potentially under way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin West Antarctica”, Science 16 May 2014, Vol. 344 no. 6185 pp. 735-738: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6185/735.abstract .
Professor David Karoly (born 1955) is an Australian climate scientist and academic, an expert in climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion and climate variations due to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, served as a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 2 (awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with Al Gore), a member of the faculty of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, a member of the board of the Australian Climate Change Authority (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Karoly ) and a co-author of the 2013 Climate Commission Report “Off the charts: extreme Australian summer heat”: http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/CC_Jan_2013_Heatwave4.pdf .
Professor David Karoly on Australian heat wave and climate change (2013): "What we have been able to see is clear evidence of an increasing trend in hot extremes, reductions in cold extremes and with the increases in hot extremes more frequent extreme fire danger days. What it means for the Australian summer is an increased frequency of hot extremes, more hot days, more heatwaves and more extreme bushfire days and that's exactly what we've been seeing typically over the last decade and we will see even more frequently in the future. What climate change is doing is worsening the conditions associated with heat waves so it makes them longer, it makes the intensity of the heat wave worse and together they lead to more frequent extreme fire danger days [Audio: Heatwaves exacerbated by climate change (AM) ; Australia's average temperature has increased by 0.9 of a degree C since 1910]. We are expecting in the next 50 years for two to three degrees more warming. In other words two or three times the warming we've seen already leading to much greater increases in heatwaves and extreme fire danger days. So we're expecting future climate change to lead to much greater increases in extremes in the next 30 to 50 years.” [1].
[1]. Professor David Karoly quoted in Simon Lauder, “” Heatwave exacerbated by climate change: Climate Commission”, ABC News, 11 January 2013: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960 .
Dr Jim Yong Kim (President, World Bank Group), in his Forward to the World Bank “Turn Down the Heat” Report: “It is my hope that this Report shocks us into action… This report spells out what the world would be like if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, which is what scientists are near-unanimously predicting by the end of the century, without serious policy changes… The 4oC scenarios are devastating: the inundation of coastal cities; increased risks for food production; potentially leading to high malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter; unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the tropics; substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions; increased frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones; and irreversible loss of biodiversity, including coral reef systems.
And most importantly, a 4oC world is so different from the current one that it comes with high uncertainty and new risks that threaten our ability to anticipate and plan for future adaptation needs.
The lack of action of climate change not only risks putting prosperity out of reach of millions of people in the developing world, it threatens to roll back decades of sustainable development.
It is clear that we already know a great deal about the threat before us. The science is unequivocal that humans are the cause of global warming, and major changes are already being observed: global mean warming is 0.8oC above pre-industrial levels; oceans have warmed by 0.09oC since the 1950s and are acidifying; sea levels rose by about 20 cm since pre-industrial times and are now r9idng at 3.2 cm per decade; an exceptional number of extreme heat waves occurred in the last decade; major food crop growing areas are increasingly affected by drought.
Despite the global community’s best intentions ti keep global warming below a 2oC increase above pre-industrial climate, higher level of warming are increasingly likely. Scientists agree that countries’ current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change emissions pledges and commitments would most likely result in a 3.5 to 4oC warming. And the longer those pledges remain unmet, the more likely a 4oC world becomes…
A 4oC world can, and must, be avoided.” [1].
[1]. Dr Jim Yong Kim, Forward to “Turn down the heat. Why a 4oC warmer world must be avoided”, A Report for the World Bank, by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, November 2012: http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf .
Dr Andrew King (University of Melbourne; one of the contributing authors to the Australian Academy of Science report,” The Risks To Australia of a 3°C Warmer World” ) (2021): “We’re on track for 3°C global warming and the impacts on Australia’s environment and people would be devastating… It’s not too late. If we make rapid and drastic cuts to greenhouse gas emissions we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change” (University of Melbourne newsroom, “Report says not too late to avoid 3°C warmer world”, 31 March 2021: https://about.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/news/2021/march/report-says-not-too-late-to-avoid-a-3c-warmer-world ).
Naomi Klein is a famous anti-racist Jewish Canadian journalist, author and activist who is very well known for her books and critiques of corporate globalization (for biography see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein; see also Naomi Klein website: http://www.naomiklein.org/main ).
Naomi Klein on the effective climate change denialism of Big Green groups who have “steered us in directions that have yielded very poor results” (2013): “Well, I think there is a very a deep denialism in the environmental movement among the Big Green groups. And to be very honest with you, I think it’s been more damaging than the right-wing denialism in terms of how much ground we’ve lost. Because it has steered us in directions that have yielded very poor results. I think if we look at the track record of Kyoto, of the UN Clean Development Mechanism, the European Union’s emissions trading scheme – we now have close to a decade that we can measure these schemes against, and it’s disastrous. Not only are emissions up, but you have no end of scams to point to, which gives fodder to the right. The right took on cap-and-trade by saying it’s going to bankrupt us, it’s handouts to corporations, and, by the way, it’s not going to work. And they were right on all counts. Not in the bankrupting part, but they were right that this was a massive corporate giveaway, and they were right that it wasn’t going to bring us anywhere near what scientists were saying we needed to do lower emissions. So I think it’s a really important question why the green groups have been so unwilling to follow science to its logical conclusions. I think the scientists Kevin Anderson and his colleague Alice Bows at the Tyndall Centre have been the most courageous on this because they don’t just take on the green groups, they take on their fellow scientists for the way in which neoliberal economic orthodoxy has infiltrated the scientific establishment. It’s really scary reading. Because they have been saying, for at least for a decade, that getting to the emissions reduction levels that we need to get to in the developed world is not compatible with economic growth.
What we know is that the environmental movement had a series of dazzling victories in the late 60s and in the 70s where the whole legal framework for responding to pollution and to protecting wildlife came into law. It was just victory after victory after victory. And these were what came to be called “command-and-control” pieces of legislation. It was “don’t do that.” That substance is banned or tightly regulated. It was a top-down regulatory approach. And then it came to screeching halt when Regan was elected. And he essentially waged war on the environmental movement very openly. We started to see some of the language that is common among those deniers – to equate environmentalism with Communism and so on. As the Cold War dwindled, environmentalism became the next target, the next Communism. Now, the movement at that stage could have responded in one of the two ways. It could have fought back and defended the values it stood for at that point, and tried to resist the steamroller that was neoliberalism in its early days. Or it could have adapted itself to this new reality, and changed itself to fit the rise of corporatist government. And it did the latter.” [1].
[1]. Naomi Klein in interview , “Conversation. Naomi Klein”, “Earth Island Journal”, 2013: http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/naomi_klein/ .
Dr David Korten (author of “Agenda for a New Economy” and “When Corporations Rule the World” , board chair of YES! magazine, co-chair of the New Economy Working Group, a founding board member of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, president of the Living Economies Forum, and a member of the Club of Rome) (2018): “When I ask an audience, “Who believes we are on a path to self-extinction?” nearly every hand goes up. It’s a sign of a growing awareness that humanity is on a path to self-imposed environmental and social collapse. For me, that awareness is a source of hope. I recently discovered an even deeper source of hope on a trip to South Korea. There I was involved in a remarkable series of international discussions on the transition to “ecological civilization"… The concept is gaining traction elsewhere as well. China has embedded its commitment to ecological civilization in its constitution… Together we need to achieve four conditions critical to the transition. 1. Earth balance… 2. Equitable distribution… 3. Life-serving technologies… 4. Living communities… It is time to unite as families, communities, and nations in our common identity as members of an ecological civilization, with a commitment to creating the possible world of our shared human dream” (David Korten, “Why I have hope in the face of extinction”, Yes!, 1 November 2018: https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/why-i-have-hope-in-the-face-of-human-extinction-20181101 ).
[Editor's note: Apropos of “Who believes we are on a path to self-extinction?” and “nearly every hand goes up”, mathematician Lily Serno wanted to “test a mathematical phenomenon called “the wisdom of the crowd” which suggests that if you have a large enough crowd, and a broad rage of people making estimates then all the errors cancel out and what you get is something surprisingly accurate” and set out to estimate “how heavy Uluru is” [Uluru being a huge rock in the centre of Australia]. The result: “My wisdom of the crowd answer of 1.6 billion tonnes , it’s within 15% of [geologist] Verity’s expert calculation of 1.425 billion tonnes” (Lily Serno “How to be lucky: the maths of chance”, ABC Catalyst, 11 September 2018: https://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/catalyst/transcripts/19_06_HowToBeLuckyTheMathsOfChance_Transcript.pdf ) ].
KRUGMAN. Paul Krugman (N.Y. Times columnist) (2016): “So what’s really at stake in this year’s election? Well, among other things, the fate of the planet. Last year was the hottest on record, by a wide margin, which should — but won’t — put an end to climate deniers’ claims that global warming has stopped. The truth is that climate change just keeps getting scarier; it is, by far, the most important policy issue facing America and the world. Still, this election wouldn’t have much bearing on the issue if there were no prospect of effective action against the looming catastrophe… Salvation from climate catastrophe is, in short, something we can realistically hope to see happen, with no political miracle necessary. But failure is also a very real possibility. Everything is hanging in the balance” (Paul Krugman, “Wind, sun and fire”, New York Times, 1 February 2016: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/opinion/wind-sun-and-fire.html?_r=0 ).
[Editor’s note: It is now very unlikely that the world will avoid a catastrophic plus 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise. The present plus 1 degree C temperature rise is already catastrophic for some island and megadelta communities and the Paris-declared goal of a 1.5 to 2 degree C temperature rise is catastrophic and also inevitable (see Gideon Polya, “Paris Climate Agreement Betrays Humanity Which Must Apply Boycotts, Divestment And Sanctions (BDS) Against Climate Criminal People, Corporations & Countries”, Countercurrents, 14 December, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya141215.htm )].
Professor Tim Lenton (an Earth system scientist based in the School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK) (2009): “The climate is undoubtedly changing, and it is changing faster than many scientists thought it would, especially in the Arctic. Regardless of the ineffectual Kyoto Protocol, carbon dioxide emissions from human activities increased by 3% per year during 2000-2006. Even if we can globally get our act together and reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, we are still heading for at least a 2C (3.6F) warmer world. This may be too much for elements of the climate system, including the Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheet, which could pass a tipping point on the way there. The resulting climate change may well be "dangerous"; and if so, mitigation alone cannot avoid it. But reducing CO2 emissions is not the only way. There are two "geo-engineering" approaches that could complement it: reflecting more sunlight back to space, or actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere” (Tim Lenton, “Big problems need big solutions”, BBC News, 4 Marxh 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7921619.stm ).
Dr Corinne Le Quéré (director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK, professor at the University of East Anglia and co-author of the UK Global Carbon Project “Global Carbon Budget 2012” Report ) (2012);"I am worried that the risks of dangerous climate change are too high on our current emissions trajectory. We need a radical plan.” [1].
[1]. Dr Corinne Le Quéré quoted in Reuters, “CO2 emissions rises mean dangerous climate change now certain. Research by Global Carbon Project says emissions growth placing world on path to warm between 4 and 6C”, UK Guardian, 3 December 2012: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/03/co2-emissions-climate-change-certain .
Dr Donald A. Levin is Professor of Biology, University of Texas, Austin; his son Dr Phillip Levin is a biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service (see:http://www.soc.duke.edu/~pmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis.html ) .
Dr Phillip S. Levin, Dr Donald A. Levin (2002): “The numbers are grim: Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in the past century. On average, one extinction happens somewhere on earth every 20 minutes. Ecologists estimate that half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years. Although crude and occasionally controversial, such statistics illustrate the extent of the current upheaval, which spans the globe and affects a broad array of plants and animals…The current losses are, however, exceptional. Rates of extinction appear now to be 100 to 1,000 times greater than background levels, qualifying the present as an era of “mass extinction”. The globe has experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past.” [1].
[1]. Phillip S. Levin and Donald A. Levin, “Thje real biodiversity crisis”, Macroscope, January-February 2002: http://www.soc.duke.edu/~pmorgan/levin&levin.2002.the_real_biodiversity_crisis.html .
Minqi Li (a Chinese political economist, world-systems analyst, and historical social scientist, currently an associate professor of Economics at the University of Utah, and known as an advocate of the Chinese New Left and a Marxian economist) (2008): “According to models adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if atmospheric CO2-equivalent rises to 445-90 ppm, then the global average temperature is likely to rise to 2-2.4 degrees above the pre-industrial level (IPCC, 2007c). With an increase of 2 degrees, there will be widespread crop failures, drought, desertification, and flooding throughout Asia, Africa, Europe, North and South America, and Australia. Of plant and animal species, 15-40 percent are likely to go extinct. But more importantly, a 2-degree warming will constitute “a dangerous anthropogenic interference” as it will initiate a series of climate feedbacks that are likely to take the earth beyond a set of “tipping points”. Beyond these tipping points, global warming will become a self-sustaining process out of human control, leading to massive catastrophes that could wipe out most of the species on earth” (Minqi Li, “The rise of China and the demise of the capitalist world economy”, Monthly Review Press, New York, 2008; page 183).
[Editor’s note: the IPCC Summary argues for a limitation of temperature rise to 2oC through limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution of the atmosphere to 450 ppm CO2-equivalent but hard evidence says that we have already reached 478 ppm CO2-equivalent (see Ron Prinn, “400 ppm CO2? Add other GHGs and its equivalent to 478 ppm”, Oceans at MIT, 6 June 2013: http://oceans.mit.edu/featured-stories/5-questions-mits-ron-prinn-400-ppm-threshold ; Gideon Polya, “International consensus-based IPCC Summary For Policymakers (2014) downplays acute seriousness of Climate Crisis”, Countercurrents, 12 November, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya121114.htm )].
Dame Penelope Margaret Lively, DBE, FRSL (born 17 March 1933) is a major UK author of fiction for both children and adults. Her novel “Moon Tiger” won the Booker Prize (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penelope_Lively ).
Penelope Lively’s heroine Claudia Hampton on the end of the World in the novel “Moon Tiger" (1987): “Tampering with the physical world is what we do supremely well. – in the end, perhaps, we shall achieve it definitively. Finis. And history will indeed come to an end”. [1].
[1]. Penelope Lively, “Moon Tiger” (Penguin), Chapter 1, page 13.
Dr James Lovelock, Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) is one of the UK’s and the World’s most eminent climate scientists. He is famous for his Gaia Hypothesis (mutually interacting physical world and biological feedbacks affecting atmosphere and climate) and for his invention of the electron capture detector which ultimately assisted in discoveries about the persistence of CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock ).
Dr James Lovelock re very few surviving this century (June 2009) : “If we can keep civilization alive through this century perhaps there is a chance that our descendants will one day serve Gaia and assist her in the fine-tuned self-regulation of the climate and composition of our planet. We have enjoyed 12,000 years of climate peace since the last shift from a glacial age to an interglacial one. Before long, we may face planet-wide devastation worse even than unrestricted nuclear war between superpowers. The climate war could kill nearly all of us and leave the few survivors living a Stone Age existence. But in several places in the world, including the U.K., we have a chance of surviving and even of living well. For that to be possible, we have to make our lifeboats seaworthy now.” [1].
Dr James Lovelock, quoted by interviewer (November 2007): “By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth's population will be culled from today's 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes -- Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin.” [2].
Dr James Lovelock re fewer than 1 billion surviving this century and in answer to the New Scientist interviewer question “Do you think that we will survive”( January 2009): “I'm an optimistic pessimist. I think it's wrong to assume we'll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is we would not find enough food, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left. It's happening again. I don't think humans react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what's coming up. Kyoto was 11 years ago. Virtually nothing's been done except endless talk and meetings.” [3].
Dr James Lovelock (2008): "[Re stopping global warming] It's just too late for it. Perhaps if we'd gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don't have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can't say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do."… "There have been seven disasters since humans came on the earth, very similar to the one that's just about to happen. I think these events keep separating the wheat from the chaff. And eventually we'll have a human on the planet that really does understand it and can live with it properly. That's the source of my optimism… [re what to do] Enjoy life while you can. Because if you're lucky it's going to be 20 years before it hits the fan" [4].
[1]. James Lovelock, “Climate war could kill nearly all of us, leaving survivors on the Stone Age”, Guardian, 29 June 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/29/climate-war-lovelock .
[2]. Jeff Goodell, “The Prophet of climate change”, Rolling Stone, 1 November 2007: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock .
[3]. Gaia Vince, “One last chance to save mankind”, New Scientist, 23 January 2009: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true
[4]. James Lovelock quoted by Decca Aitkenhead, “James Lovelock: “enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan”, Guardian, 1 March 2008: http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange .
James Lovelock (FRS, atmospheric gas analysis and proposer of the Gaia thesis) (2006) “We are not all doomed. An awful lot of people will die, but I don’t see the species dying out... A hot Earth couldn’t support much over 500 million” (James Lovelock quoted in “Scientist says global warming will ‘kill billions'”, The Scotsman, 2006 and in David Spratt, “At 4oC of warming, would a billion people survive? What scientists say” , Climate Code Red, 18 August 2019: http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/08/at-4c-of-warming-would-billion-people.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29 ).
Elena Manaenkova (World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Deputy Secretary-General) re the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C that the average global temperature was 0.86°C above the pre-industrial baseline for the decade 2006-2015, was 0.93°C above this baseline for the most recent decade 2009-2018, and was 1.04°C above this baseline for the past five years, 2014-2018 (2018): “These are more than just numbers. Every fraction of a degree of warming makes a difference to human health and access to food and fresh water, to the extinction of animals and plants, to the survival of coral reefs and marine life. It makes a difference to economic productivity, food security, and to the resilience of our infrastructure and cities. It makes a difference to the speed of glacier melt and water supplies, and the future of low-lying islands and coastal communities. Every extra bit matters” (Elena Manaenkova quoted in “WMO climate statement: past 4 years warmest on record”, WMO Press Release, 29 November 2018: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-climate-statement-past-4-years-warmest-record ).
Michael E. Mann (Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, contributor to the International Panel on Climate Change work that received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and author of “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines” (Columbia University Press, 2012)) (2014): .Although the earth has experienced exceptional warming over the past century, to estimate how much more will occur we need to know how temperature will respond to the ongoing human-caused rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. Scientists call this responsiveness “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS). ECS is a common measure of the heating effect of greenhouse gases. It represents the warming at the earth's surface that is expected after the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles and the climate subsequently stabilizes (reaches equilibrium).The preindustrial level of CO2 was about 280 parts per million (ppm), so double is roughly 560 ppm… When all the forms of evidence are combined, they point to a most likely value for ECS that is close to three degrees C. And as it turns out, the climate models the IPCC actually used in its Fifth Assessment Report imply an even higher value of 3.2 degrees C… for an ECS of three degrees C, our planet would cross the dangerous warming threshold of two degrees C in 2036, only 22 years from now… These findings have implications for what we all must do to prevent disaster. An ECS of three degrees C means that if we are to limit global warming to below two degrees C forever, we need to keep CO2 concentrations far below twice preindustrial levels, closer to 450 ppm. Ironically, if the world burns significantly less coal, that would lessen CO2 emissions but also reduce aerosols in the atmosphere that block the sun (such as sulfate particulates), so we would have to limit CO2 to below roughly 405 ppm. We are well on our way to surpassing these limits. In 2013 atmospheric CO2 briefly reached 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history—and perhaps for the first time in millions of years, according to geologic evidence. To avoid breaching the 405-ppm threshold, fossil-fuel burning would essentially have to cease immediately. To avoid the 450-ppm threshold, global carbon emissions could rise only for a few more years and then would have to ramp down by several percent a year” (Michael Mann, “Earth will cropss the climate danger threshold by 2036”,Scientific American, 18 March 2014: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/ ).
Michael Mann (2015): "Based on my assessment of the science, my objective assessment of what the science actually tells us right now, I don't think we've passed a tipping point yet where we go beyond the adaptive capacity of human civilization or beyond the adaptive capacity of living things. I don't think we've yet crossed that line. We have certainly committed to some dangerous changes in climate already and it's possible we have already warmed the oceans enough that they're going to melt the ice shelves around Antarctica enough to destabilize enough of that antarctic ice to give us ten feet or eleven feet of sea level rise by the end of the century. That is a very real possibility" (Michael Mann in interview with Thom Hartmann, “Understanding Climate Change: A Conversation With Michael Mann”, Countercurrents, 17 November, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/hartmann171115.htm ).
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Mauna Loa Observatory publishes graphs showing recent monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii over the last 50 years. (see “Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ ).
The last four complete years of the Mauna Loa CO2 record plus the current year are shown, as are data from 1960 onwards. Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm.
CO2 concentration was a minimum of about 310 ppm in 1960 but reached a maximum value of 397 ppm in 2012 and is increasing at an ever-increasing rate, about 2 ppm per year in 2012 as compared to 1 ppm per year in 1960.
Thorsten Mauritsen & Robert Pincuse (climate scientists) (2017): “Due to the lifetime of CO2, the thermal inertia of the oceans, and the temporary impacts of short-lived aerosols and reactive greenhouse gases, the Earth’s climate is not equilibrated with anthropogenic forcing. As a result, even if fossil-fuel emissions were to suddenly cease, some level of committed warming is expected due to past emissions as studied previously using climate models. Here, we provide an observational-based quantification of this committed warming using the instrument record of global-mean warming, recently improved estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance, and estimates of radiative forcing from the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Compared with pre-industrial levels, we find a committed warming of 1.5 K (0.9–3.6, 5th–95th percentile) at equilibrium, and of 1.3 K (0.9–2.3) within this century. However, when assuming that ocean carbon uptake cancels remnant greenhouse gas-induced warming on centennial timescales, committed warming is reduced to 1.1 K (0.7–1.8). In the latter case there is a 13% risk that committed warming already exceeds the 1.5 K [1.5C rise] target set in Paris. Regular updates of these observationally constrained committed warming estimates, although simplistic, can provide transparent guidance as uncertainty regarding transient climate sensitivity inevitably narrows and the understanding of the limitations of the framework is advanced” (Thorsten Mauritsen & Robert Pincus, “Committed warming inferred from observations”, Nature Climate Change, volume 7, pages 652–655, 2017: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3357#affil-auth ).
In Booker Prize-winning British writer Ian Mc Ewan’s novel “Nutshell” the story is told by the unborn child of a heavily pregnant, faithless mother who has frequent passionate sex with her brother-in-law and is plotting the murder of her husband, the unborn child’s father. “Nutshell” is loosely related to Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, and is an existential parable for the as yet unborn of Humanity as in Hamlet’s famous: “To be or not to be, that is the question”. Ian McEwan has the unborn baby recount at length the expert view he hears via electronic media of our tottering world: “An expert in international relations, a reasonable woman with a rich deep voice, advised me that the world was not well… Uniting and levelling all humanity, the dull old facts of altered climate, vanishing forests, creatures and polar ice. Profitable and poisonous agriculture, obliterating biological beauty. Oceans turning to weak acid. Well above the horizon, approaching fast, the ruinous tsunami of the burgeoning old, cancerous and demented, demanding care. And soon, with demographic transition, the reverse, populations in catastrophic decline. Free speech no longer free, liberal democracy no longer the port of destiny, robots stealing jobs, liberty in close combat with security, socialism is disgrace, capitalism corrupt, destructive and in disgrace, no alternatives in sight. In conclusion, she said, these disasters are the work of our twin natures. Clever and infantile. We’ve built a world too complicated and dangerous for our quarrelsome natures to manage. In such hopelessness, the general vote will be for the supernatural. It’s dusk in the second Age of Reason. We were wonderful, but now we are doomed” (Ian Mc Ewan , “Nutshell”, pages 26-27; Gideon Polya, “Review: “Nutshell” by Ian McEwan – parable for the planet’s unborn”, MWC News, 11 March 2017: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/64222-nutshell-by-ian-mcewan.html ).
Professor Bill McGuire (professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London) when asked by Dr Andrew Simms “Is it still likely that we will stay below even 2C?” (2017): “My personal view is that there is not a cat in hell’s chance” (Andrew Simms, “”A cat in hell’s chance” – why we’re losing the battle to keep global warming below 2C”, Guardian, 19 January 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/cat-in-hells-chance-why-losing-battle-keep-global-warming-2c-climate-change ).
William Ernest "Bill" McKibben (born 1960) is an American environmentalist, author, and journalist and the leader of 350.org that urges returning atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) to below 350 parts per million (ppm) CO2 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McKibben and 350.org: http://www.350.org/ ). It should be noted that the Australian-based 300.org ,based on the latest science, urges a return of atmospheric CO2 to about 300 ppm CO2 (see 300.org: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org and https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm ).
Bill McKibben on 3 critical climate change numbers 2, 565 and 2,795 (2012) [I have inserted the appropriate UNITS that are crucial to the argument] : “2 [degrees Centigrade] … So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.) Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. "Any number much above one degree involves a gamble," writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up." Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank's chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: "If we're seeing what we're seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much." NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet's most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: "The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster". At the Copenhagen summit, a spokesman for small island nations warned that many would not survive a two-degree rise: "Some countries will flat-out disappear." When delegates from developing nations were warned that two degrees would represent a "suicide pact" for drought-stricken Africa, many of them started chanting, "One degree, one Africa."Despite such well-founded misgivings, political realism bested scientific data, and the world settled on the two-degree target – indeed, it's fair to say that it's the only thing about climate change the world has settled on. All told, 167 countries responsible for more than 87 percent of the world's carbon emissions have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, endorsing the two-degree target. Only a few dozen countries have rejected it, including Kuwait, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Even the United Arab Emirates, which makes most of its money exporting oil and gas, signed on. The official position of planet Earth at the moment is that we can't raise the temperature more than two degrees Celsius – it's become the bottomest of bottom lines. Two degrees…565 [billion tonnes CO2]… scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.) This idea of a global "carbon budget" emerged about a decade ago, as scientists began to calculate how much oil, coal and gas could still safely be burned. Since we've increased the Earth's temperature by 0.8 degrees so far, we're currently less than halfway to the target… 2,795 [billion tonnes CO2] The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.” [1].
Professor Barry McMullin (Dublin City University) when asked by Dr Andrew Simms “Is it still likely that we will stay below even 2C?” (2017): “The open question for me is not whether we will breach the 2C target but how soon” (Andrew Simms, “”A cat in hell’s chance” – why we’re losing the battle to keep global warming below 2C”, Guardian, 19 January 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/cat-in-hells-chance-why-losing-battle-keep-global-warming-2c-climate-change ).
Guy McPherson (Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona): “We're so close to the sun, we're so close to the inner edge of the habitable zone for life on Earth that even a minor change in atmospheric composition could push us out of the habitable zone. Well, we haven't made minor changes in the atmospheric chemistry of the Earth; we've made major changes in the atmospheric chemistry of the Earth” (Guy McPherson quoted in Thom Hartmann, “Understanding Climate Change: A Conversation With Michael Mann”, Countercurrents, 17 November, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/hartmann171115.htm ).
Guy Mc Pherson (2011): “C, with the party probably over by 2030. During the intervening period I’ve seen nothing to sway this belief, and much evidence to reinforce it. Yet the protests, ridicule, and hate mail reach a fervent pitch when I speak or write about the potential for near-term extinction of Homo sapiens… We’re headed for extinction via global climate change. It’s hotter than it used to be, but not as hot as it’s going to be. The political response to this now-obvious information is to suspend the scientist bearing the bad news. Which, of course, is no surprise at all: As Australian scientist Gideon Polya points out, the United States must cease production of greenhouse gases within 3.1 years if we are to avoid catastrophic runaway greenhouse. I think Polya is optimistic, and I don’t think Obama’s on-board with the attendant collapse of the U.S. industrial economy… We’re headed for extinction via environmental collapse… We’re headed for extinction via nuclear meltdown” (Guy Mc Pherson,”Three paths to near-term human extinction”, Nature Bats Last, 20 August 2011: http://guymcpherson.com/2011/08/three-paths-to-near-term-human-extinction/ ).
Suketu Mehta (Gujarati Indian American writer, an associate professor of journalism at New York University, and author of “Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found” and “This Land is Our Land. An Immigrant’s Manifesto”) (2019): “But migration driven by climate change isn’t something that’s safely in the future; it’s been dramatically increasing in the recent past. Since 1992, 4.2 billion people have been affected by droughts, floods and storms. Today, 1.8 billion people are suffering the effects of drought, land degradation, and desertification… migrants come to work because they can’t work at home. Heat waves took almost a million people out of the global workplace in 2016, half of them in India alone. They come to eat because they can’t eat at home. For every degree Celsius increase in temperature, wheat yields have been falling by 6 percent and rice yields by 3 percent. 1.5 degrees, corn yields shrink by 10 percent” (pages 102-103, Suketu Mehta , “This Land Is Our Land. An Immigrant’s Manifesto ”, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2019).
Dr Malte Meinshausen (Dr. Malte Meinshausen is Senior Researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany and Senior Research Fellow at the School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne) and colleagues (2009): “More than 100 countries have adopted a global warming limit of 2 °C or below (relative to pre-industrial levels) as a guiding principle for mitigation efforts to reduce climate change risks, impacts and damages. However, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions corresponding to a specified maximum warming are poorly known owing to uncertainties in the carbon cycle and the climate response. Here we provide a comprehensive probabilistic analysis aimed at quantifying GHG emission budgets for the 2000–50 period that would limit warming throughout the twenty-first century to below 2°C, based on a combination of published distributions of climate system properties and observational constraints. We show that, for the chosen class of emission scenarios, both cumulative emissions up to 2050 and emission levels in 2050 are robust indicators of the probability that twenty-first century warming will not exceed 2 °C relative to pre-industrial temperatures. Limiting cumulative CO2 emissions over 2000–50 to 1,000 Gt CO2 yields a 25% probability of warming exceeding 2 °C—and a limit of 1,440 Gt CO2 yields a 50% probability—given a representative estimate of the distribution of climate system properties. As known 2000–06 CO2 emissions3 were ~234 Gt CO2, less than half the proven economically recoverable oil, gas and coal reserves can still be emitted up to 2050 to achieve such a goal. Recent G8 Communiqués7 envisage halved global GHG emissions by 2050, for which we estimate a 12–45% probability of exceeding 2 °C—assuming 1990 as emission base year and a range of published climate sensitivity distributions. Emissions levels in 2020 are a less robust indicator, but for the scenarios considered, the probability of exceeding 2 °C rises to 53–87% if global GHG emissions are still more than 25% above 2000 levels in 2020” (Malte Meinshausen et al, “Greenhouse gas emissions targets for limiting global warming t 2oC”, Nature, 458, 1158-1162 (30 April 2009: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08017.html ).
[Editor's note: The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 relative to that of CO2 (1.0) is 21 on a 100 year time frame but on a 20 year time frame and taking aerosol impacts into account, it is 105. This re-assessment of the GWP of CH4 becomes of great importance in assessing how many years we have left to tackle GHG pollution (see Drew T. Shindell , Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”, Science, 30 October 2009: Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716 ).
Thus the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) provides estimates of CH4 emissions from the US alone that total about 0.67 Gt CH4 annually or 0.67 Gt CH4 x 105 Gt CO2-e/Gt CH4 = 70.35 Gt CO2-e annually. If we set the terminal GHG pollution budget to 600 Gt CO2-e then the US alone has a mere 600 Gt CO2-e/(70.35 Gt CO2-e per year) = 8.5 years of such pollution of this single GHG before this terminal GHG pollution budget is exceeded (see “Greenhouse gas emissions”, US EPA: http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html ) .
In 2009 World Bank analysts used an estimate of a GWP of 72 for CH4 on a 20 year time frame to re-assess the contribution of livestock to man-made GHG pollution as over 32.564 Gt CO2-e/year of which 5.047 GT CO2-e/year is due to undercounted methane. This re-assessment lifts the annual GHG pollution from 41.744 Gt CO2-e to 63.803 Gt CO2-e. Assuming that live-stock-related GHG pollution increases in direct proportion ion to energy-related CO2 emissions, one can estimate that the world will reach 551.738 Gt CO2-e in 2017 and 624.363 Gt CO2-e in 2018 i.e. the World has 5.8 years at present rates relative to 2012 before it exceeds the terminal CO2-e budget.
However one can re-assess the World Bank re-assessment by consider that CH4 has a GWP relative to CO2 of 105. This re-assessment indicates that the World will reach 573.167 Gt CO2-e in 2017 and 648.547 Gt CO2-e in 2018 i.e. the World has 5.3 years at present rates relative to 2012 before it exceeds the terminal CO2-e budget.of 600 Gt CO2-e].
Christian Milhatsch (Climate reporter) (2019), “The climate crisis is becoming increasingly apocalyptic. It is unlikely that our civilization will end soon — but possible. And this possibility is still receiving too little attention… Schellnhuber calls for less attention be paid to "probabilities" and more to "possibilities". "This corresponds to the scenario planning in the economy, where the consequences of possible developments are examined, which seem unlikely, but have far-reaching consequences." That's exactly what the authors of the Breakthrough study, David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, have done, developing a scenario that will raise the climate by three degrees by 2050. That's not extreme. For the 30 years to the middle of the century, there is a five percent chance that the climate will warm up by 3.5 to 4 degrees.” To show how this can happen, Spratt and Dunlop tell a "story": In the coming decade, the climate crisis is still receiving too little attention, and emissions will continue to rise until 2030, only to decline thereafter. Then it is already too late and the climate warms by 2050 by three degrees. In retrospect, scientists then find that several tipping points have been reached, such as the thawing of permafrost and droughts in the Amazon rainforest. One-third of the earth is now too hot for at least 20 days a year to allow people to survive outdoors. Food production is no longer enough to feed all people, and there are more than a billion climate refugees” (translation David Spratt , Climate Code Red c/- Google of Christian Milhatsch, “Stirbt die Menschheit aus?” (“Is humanity dying?”), Klima Reporter, 9 June 2019: https://www.klimareporter.de/erdsystem/stirbt-die-menschheit-aus ).
Brandon Miller (CNN meteorologist) (2018): “ According to a United Nations report released Tuesday, however, projected emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, from nations around the world fall woefully short of the 2 degree Celsius goal set in the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015. In fact, the report states that the current emission targets for all countries would result in an average global temperature rise of 3.2 degrees Celsius (5.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. A 3.2 degree warmer world by the end of this century would bring about many of the dire consequences for human health, global economies and sea level rise that are projected from the "higher-emission" scenarios (also known as worst-case scenarios)” (Brandon Miller, “World is woefully short of 2 degree goal for climate change, according to UN report”, CNN, 28 November 2018: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/27/world/climate-change-un-emission-report-2018-wxc/index.html ).
Tariel Mórrígan is the Principal Research Associate, Global Climate Change, Human Security and Democracy, Global & International Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA: http://globalchangewatch.weebly.com/ .
Tariel Mórrígan on need to get back to 300 ppm CO2 (2010 ): “ Limiting the atmospheric CO2 concentration to no greater than 350 ppm might prevent committed global warming to no more than 2.4oC in the long term, after the temporary delay by climate and ocean thermal inertia reach their peak potenttial climate forcing (i.e. warming) , Stabilization at or below 350 ppm CO2-eq provides a 93% probability of staying below 2oC above pre-industrial values (IPCC, 2007c ; Meinshausen, 2006). Thjerefore a CO2 target as low as 300 ppm may be necessary to stabilize to prevent a dangerous warming of 2oC. Global average temperatures may stabilize within a likely range of 0.6-1.4oC above pre-industrial values at or below 350 ppm CO2-eq (300 ppm CO2) (IPCC, 2007c ; Meinshausen, 2006).” [1].
Synopsis of “Peak energy, climate change, and the collapse of global civilization. The current oil crisis” by Tariel Morrigan (2010): “This report is a synthesis of the current state of knowledge on energy resources and global climate and environmental change. The findings clearly indicate that the convergence of peak energy resources and dangerous anthropogenic climate and environmental change will likely have a disastrous impact in the near- and long-term on the quantity and quality of human life on the planet… The findings suggest:
Global conventional oil production likely peaked around 2005 – 2011.
Peak global production of coal, natural gas, and uranium resources will likely occur by 2020 – 2030, if not sooner.
Energy resource shortages post-peak oil will likely cause a systemic collapse of global industrialized civilization in the near-term as the abundant fossil fuel energy resources used to develop and support industrialized economies become increasingly scarce.
Current trends in land, soil, water, and biodiversity loss and degradation, combined with potential climate change impacts, ocean acidification, a mass extinction event, and energy scarcity will significantly limit the human carrying capacity of the Earth.” [2].
[1]. Tariel Mórrígan, “Target atmospheric greenhouse gas concetrations. Why hunaity shoulkd aim for 350 ppm CO2-e”: http://www.global.ucsb.edu/climateproject/papers/pdf/Morrigan_2010_Target%20Atmospheric%20GHG%20Concentrations.pdf .
[2]. Synopsis of Tariel Mórrígan, “Peak energy, climate change, and the collapse of global civilization. The current oil crisis”, University of California, Santa Barbara (2010): http://www.global.ucsb.edu/climateproject/papers/index.html# .
Safa Motesharri is an applied mathematicians at the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center.
Dr Safa Motesharri and colleagues in a study based on the HANDY model has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological Economics, It models past “collapses” with a view to predicting the future for Humanity (2014): “"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent… accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels… Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use… [under conditions] closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid… .[ civilization] appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature… While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support of doing nothing… Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion."
[1]. Dr Nafeez Ahmed, “NASA-funded study: industrial civilization headed for “irreversible collapse”?”, Guardian, 15 March 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists .
Herman J. Muller (American geneticist, educator, and 1946 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine for the physiological and genetic effects of radiation (X-ray mutagenesis)) co-signed the Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with 10 other eminent scientists (all but Infeld were or became Nobel Laureates) that called for “an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons” and concluded with the resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.” (The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955): http://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/ ).
Susan Murphy is the author of “Minding the Earth, Mending the World”.
Susan Murphy on climate change ignoring and climate change inaction: “[it is] ridiculous to pretend it is not happening, and almost equally ridiculous to mention it , since no one can personally hope to change its course, and no one much wants even to hear about it” [1].
[1]. Susan Murphy quoted under “The Great Taboo” in Libby Skeels, Ben Nisenbaum, Carol Ride, Sue Pratt and Bronwyn Wauchope, ”Let’s speak about climate change. Psychology for a Safe Climate”
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “GISS surface temperature analysis”,: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
James A. Butler and Stephen A. Montzka (US National Ocean & Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory) (2016): The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate forcing as “An externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the Earth climate system, e.g. through changes in solar radiation, changes in the Earth albedo, or changes in atmospheric gases and aerosol particles.” Thus climate forcing is a “change” in the status quo. IPCC takes the pre-industrial era (chosen as the year 1750) as the baseline. The perturbation to direct climate forcing (also termed “radiative forcing”) that has the largest magnitude and the least scientific uncertainty is the forcing related to changes in long-lived, well mixed greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and halogenated compounds (mainly CFCs). Atmospheric global greenhouse gas abundances are used to calculate changes in radiative forcing beginning in 1979 when NOAA's global air sampling network expanded significantly. The change in annual average total radiative forcing by all the long-lived greenhouse gases since the pre-industrial era (1750) is also used to define the NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI), which was introduced in 2004… Table 2: CO2-equivalent (ppm) 280 (1750) , 385 (1980), 417 (1990), 485 (2015); AGGI 0.00 (1750), 0.80 (1980), 1.00 (1990), 1.37 (2015” (James A. Butler and Stephen A. Montzka, “The NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI)”, NOAA, 2016: http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html ).
[Editor’s note: The international consensus basis of the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers (2014) has resulted in a report that softens the present acute seriousness of unaddressed man-made climate change. Thus the IPCC Summary argues for a limitation of temperature rise to 2oC through limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution of the atmosphere to 450 ppm CO2-equivalent - "about 450 ppm CO2-eq, likely to limit warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels" - but hard evidence from NOAA says that we have already reached 485 ppm CO2-equivalent (2015), that 2oC is dangerous and essentially inevitable, and that the world will use up its Carbon Budget for avoiding 2oC within about 4 years; see Gideon Polya, “International consensus-based IPCC Summary For Policymakers (2014) downplays acute seriousness of Climate Crisis”, Countercurrents, 12 November, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya121114.htm ].
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reporting that the the atmospheric greenhouse gases reached 497 ppm CO2-equivalent in 2019 (280 ppm CO2-equivalent in 1750; 407 ppm CO2 in 2019): “Figure 5. Pre-1978 changes in the CO2-equivalent abundance” (NOAA, “The NOAA annual greenhouse gas index (AGGI)”, 2019: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html ).
[Editor: The IPCC ( the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has released a succession of 5 key reports, the latest being the Fifth Assessment Report, AR5 , 2014, that states: “ 450 ppm CO2-eq, likely to limit warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels” (The IPCC, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, Approved Summary for Policy Makers”, 1 November 2014: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf ). The IPCC Summary argued for a limitation of temperature rise to 2oC through limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution of the atmosphere to 450 ppm CO2-equivalent but hard evidence already indicated that we had already reached 478 ppm CO2-equivalent by 2013 i.e. plus 2°C likely (see Ron Prinn, “400 ppm CO2? Add other GHGs and its equivalent to 478 ppm”, Oceans at MIT, 6 June 2013: http://oceans.mit.edu/featured-stories/5-questions-mits-ron-prinn-400-ppm-threshold ; Gideon Polya, “International consensus-based IPCC Summary For Policymakers (2014) downplays acute seriousness of Climate Crisis”, Countercurrents, 12 November, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya121114.htm )].
Connor Nolan et al. (2018): “Impacts of global climate change on terrestrial ecosystems are imperfectly constrained by ecosystem models and direct observations. Pervasive ecosystem transformations occurred in response to warming and associated climatic changes during the last glacial-to-interglacial transition, which was comparable in magnitude to warming projected for the next century under high-emission scenarios. We reviewed 594 published paleoecological records to examine compositional and structural changes in terrestrial vegetation since the last glacial period and to project the magnitudes of ecosystem transformations under alternative future emission scenarios. Our results indicate that terrestrial ecosystems are highly sensitive to temperature change and suggest that, without major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, terrestrial ecosystems worldwide are at risk of major transformation, with accompanying disruption of ecosystem services and impacts on biodiversity” (Connor Nolan et al., “Past and future global transformation of terrestrial ecosystems under climate change”, Science, 31 August 2018, Vol. 361, Issue 6405, pp. 920-923: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6405/920 ).
Pacific Islands Development Forum (2019): “We the People of the Pacific islands Development Forum, Striving to advance the sustainable and inclusive development of Pacific Island nations … Declare that we … 3. Underscore the serious concerns and stark warnings, documented by the IPCC Special Report on 1.5oC and the Special Report on Oceans and Cryosphere, GHG emissions must be reduced immediately . The science warns of the real possibility that coral atoll nations could become uninhabitable as early as 2030. By 2100, the coral atoll nations of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Tokelau and the Maldives and many SIDS could be submerged” (Pacific Islands Development Forum Pacific Islands Development Forum, “Nadi Bay Declaration on the Pacific Islands Climate Change Crisis”, 30 July 2019: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cbSloYVSuY4mIZnUUC5ISpZUaV3NTb2y/view ).
Professor Martin Parry (a senior Met Office scientist and co-chairman of the IPCC committee which produced a 2007 report) commenting on this 2007 IPCC report at the Royal Geographical Society (2007): “Ten years ago we were talking about these impacts affecting our children and our grandchildren. Now it is happening to us. Even if we achieve a cap at two degrees, there is a stock of major impacts out there already and that means adaptation. You cannot mitigate your way out of this problem… The choice is between a damaged world or a future with a severely damaged world” (Professor Martin Parry and IPCC 2007 report quoted in Cahal Milmo, ““Too late to avoid global warming”, say scientists”, The Independent, 19 September 2007: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/too-late-to-avoid-global-warming-say-scientists-402800.html ).
Linus Pauling (American chemist, biochemist, peace activist, author, educator, 1954 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry for quantum chemistry and protein chemistry and 1962 Nobel Laureate for Peace) co-signed the Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with 10 other eminent scientists (all but Infeld were or became Nobel Laureates) that called for “an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons” and concluded with the resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.” (The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955): http://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/ ).
Dr Daniel Pauly (Professor of Fisheries, University of British Colombia, Canada, and an editor for the United Nations' next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2012).: “Fish have to follow the temperature. They have to follow, they have no choice and if you put that in the models of climate change, you see the fish moving at rates that very much correspond to the way that I observed, about 50 kilometres per decade... Countries that are big in longitude but not in latitude, like Indonesia, are only on the losing side. So temperate countries and much of Australia is - at least Tasmania is - will not see the problem, so not experience the problem so strongly as countries that are purely tropical… Yeah, and the newspaper, the local newspapers say [re giant squid in BC, Canada] 'What is this, a sea monster?' This- they, in Mexico they are used to it, they fish it. In BC they don't know and they think in the newspaper this is a sea monster. See that's the lack of familiarity and this is- will happen… I think we are still dealing with this in terms of cost, in terms of 'We cannot afford this given the budget'. We are not dealing with it in terms of the danger that this represents - it's like a war. When there is a war, the industry is put on a war footing, and then within weeks it stops using- producing cars - it was so in the States - and it starts producing aeroplanes. World War II is a good example. Really the question of cost doesn't come up. You had a bunch of crazies that were threatening all of Western civilisation. Actually, I think that global warming does threaten all of Western civilisation and but we are dealing with pennies, we are dealing with pennies. And so Doha, like Copenhagen, I think there will be meetings that will still be seen in terms of money, financing, whereas they have to be seen in terms of security. And it's- for the first time it's not security of this or that country, it's the security of humanity.” [1].
[1]. Dr Daniel Pauly in interview, “Prepare economy for climate change “war”: expert ”, ABC Radio National, “AM”, 4 December 2012: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3646638.htm .
Dr Sarah Perkins, co-author of the 2014 Australian Climate Council interim report on heatwaves and a research fellow at the UNSW, Sydney (see: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/australian-heatwaves-hotter-longer-climate-council ).
Dr Sarah Perkins on the worsening Australian heatwave threat (SE Australia in January 2014 suffered one of its worst ever heatwaves with temperatures over 40C for days and peaking at 46C) (2014): “Before the 2009 Black Saturday fires, there was a decade-long drought, which produced some climatic variability reasons behind it. This year, we aren’t in an El Niño, we’re in a neutral pattern, so we might expect some extreme weather but not this hot scorching weather. Last year was a neutral year too, on the back of a strong La Niña, and we still got extreme weather. I’m not discounting natural variability, but there is still the background signal of climate change. The high-pressure system probably would’ve happened anyway, but climate change is exacerbating these events. While we can’t blame climate change for any one event, we can certainly see its fingerprint. This is another link in the chain…[the trend ] just gets worse – it’s a bit scary really”. We are experiencing between one to three extra heatwave days a year, compared to the long term average, which doesn’t sound a lot but it doesn’t need many of these days to kill people or cause damage. And this is with background warming of 1C. If current trends continue and we get to 4C warming, it will be a whole lot worse than now.” [1].
[1]. Oliver Milman, “Australian heatwaves getting hotter and longer, says Climate Council”, Guardian, 16 January 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/australian-heatwaves-hotter-longer-climate-council .
Glen P. Peters (CICERO Senter for Klimaforskning Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo, Norway) and colleagues Robbie M. Andrew, Tom Boden, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Corinne Le Quéré, Gregg Marland, Michael R. Rapauch & Charlie Wilson (2012): “The latest carbon dioxide emissions continue to track the high end of emission scenarios, making it even less likely global warming will stay below 2 °C. A shift to a 2 °C pathway requires immediate significant and sustained global mitigation, with a probable reliance on net negative emissions in the longer term.” [1].
[1]. Glen P. Peters, Robbie M. Andrew, Tom Boden, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Corinne Le Quéré, Gregg Marland, Michael R. Rapauch & Charlie Wilson, “The challenge to keep global warming below 2o Centigrade”, Nature Climate Change, published on-line 2 December 2012: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1783.html .
According to Wikipedia (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov ) “Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov (born c. 1939) is a retired lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces. On September 26, 1983 he was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early warning system when the system reported a missile being launched from the United States. Petrov judged that the report was a false alarm. This decision may have prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its Western allies. Investigation later confirmed that the satellite warning system had malfunctioned”.
See also “On this date [26 September] 1983, Stanislav Petrov single-handedly prevented nuclear war”, (Mental Floss, 26 September 2012: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/143192 ): “On September 26, 1983, the world came very close to nuclear war. Shortly after midnight, alarms inside Serpukhov-15—a bunker in Moscow where the Soviet Union monitored its satellites over the United States—began to go off. The satellites had detected the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile from a base in the United States. Then the system reported that five missiles had been launched and were heading toward the Soviet Union from the U.S. Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, who was on duty that night, had no way of knowing that it was a false alarm: The satellites had mistaken the reflections of sunlight off high-altitude clouds as a missile launch. He had only a few minutes to determine if this was a genuine attack. In that case, Soviet protocol was an immediate counterattack... Under immense pressure, Petrov ultimately decided that the satellites were wrong. In addition to what he called “a funny feeling in my gut,” he had other evidence to suggest reports of an attack were false. Ground-based radar hadn’t detected any incoming missiles, even a few minutes after the satellite alarm (the delay is because ground-based radar can’t see over the horizon). What’s more, Petrov had been told any attack would be a full barrage of missiles, not just five, and he knew that the system had flaws. He reported his findings to his superiors, who did not launch an attack.”
PISTONE
Kristina Pistone, Ian Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan (Scripps Institute for Oceanography, University of California at San Diego) (2014): “We find that the Arctic planetary albedio has decreased from 0.52 to 0.48 between 1979 and 2011, corresponding to an additional 6.4 +/- 0.9 W/m2 of solar energy input into the Arctic Oceean region. Since 1979 , Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period.” [1]
[1]. Kristina Pistone, Ian Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan, “Obervational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing sea ice”, Proc. Nat. Acad. Science. USA, 2014: http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/publications/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2014.pdf .
Robert Pincus & Thorsten Mauritsen (climate scientists)(2017): “Due to the lifetime of CO2, the thermal inertia of the oceans, and the temporary impacts of short-lived aerosols and reactive greenhouse gases, the Earth’s climate is not equilibrated with anthropogenic forcing. As a result, even if fossil-fuel emissions were to suddenly cease, some level of committed warming is expected due to past emissions as studied previously using climate models. Here, we provide an observational-based quantification of this committed warming using the instrument record of global-mean warming, recently improved estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance, and estimates of radiative forcing from the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Compared with pre-industrial levels, we find a committed warming of 1.5 K (0.9–3.6, 5th–95th percentile) at equilibrium, and of 1.3 K (0.9–2.3) within this century. However, when assuming that ocean carbon uptake cancels remnant greenhouse gas-induced warming on centennial timescales, committed warming is reduced to 1.1 K (0.7–1.8). In the latter case there is a 13% risk that committed warming already exceeds the 1.5 K [1.5C rise] target set in Paris. Regular updates of these observationally constrained committed warming estimates, although simplistic, can provide transparent guidance as uncertainty regarding transient climate sensitivity inevitably narrows and the understanding of the limitations of the framework is advanced” (Thorsten Mauritsen & Robert Pincus, “Committed warming inferred from observations”, Nature Climate Change, volume 7, pages 652–655, 2017: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3357#affil-auth ).
Dr Gideon Polya is a biochemist, academic, writer, artist, and climate change activist. Associated with the Australian Climate Emergency Network and the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group, he is the Convenor of 300.org that, informed by the latest science, holds that we must return the world's atmospheric CO2 concentration to 300 ppm for a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species (see: .http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya ).
Dr Gideon Polya re climate genocide (December 2009): “Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming – these estimates translating to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis.” [1].
Dr Gideon Polya on Climate Genocide in context of April 22, Earth Day (2011): “April 22 is Earth Day. The following science-informed analysis summarizes the dire state of the Planet and what needs to be done to stop the horrendous global avoidable mortality holocaust killing 18 million people each year and to deal with the worsening climate emergency that threatens a climate genocide with a predicted 10 billion victims this century if man-made climate change is not urgently addressed.” [2].
Dr Gideon Polya (2012): "We are badly running out of time to deal with the climate emergency. Yet it is not too late - what is required is rapid cessation of carbon burning, deforestation and methane-generating land use; deployment of 100% renewable energy; massive renewable energy-driven biochar production to reduce atmospheric CO2 back to 300 ppm from the present nearly 400 ppm; and in Australia cessation of coal, gas and iron ore exports.
I am a 5-decade career scientist and active environmentalist (member of the Climate Emergency Network and the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group), I give and offer lectures and lecture courses on the climate crisis to community groups in Greater Melbourne (from Seymour to Trafalgar) as well as to university students (Google "2011 climate change course") , I have created websites to educate the public (e.g. Google "300.org", "Gas is dirty energy" and "Are we doomed?”), publish articles around the world, endlessly write to Australian MPs and Mainstream media, letterbox for climate activist organizations and the Greens, and "bear witness" by always wearing a big badge saying "300 ppm CO2" (the atmospheric CO2, concentration is approaching 400 ppm and must be returned to 300 ppm ASAP)..
If you care for your children, grandchildren and the Planet, vote Green." [Here are the links quoted: "300.org": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm , "Gas is dirty energy": https://sites.google.com/site/gasisnotcleanenergy/gas-is-dirty-energy and "Are we doomed?”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/are-we-doomed ]. [3].
Dr Gideon Polya on acute seriousness of CH4 release in the Arctic (2013) “The acute seriousness of the present situation is revealed by the following dire estimations. The atmospheric consequence of 2 centuries of fossil fuel burning has been the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to a current 400 ppm. Top climate scientists and biologists argue that for a safe and sustainable planet there must be a return of atmospheric CO2 concentration to about 300 ppm CO2. The major means of doing this are through cessation of greenhouse gas pollution, re-afforestation and conversion of agricultural and forestry cellulosic biomass waste to biochar (charcoal, carbon) through anaerobic pyrolysis (heating at 500-700C in the absence of oxygen). The atmosphere contains about 700 billion tonnes of CO2 and hence reducing the CO2 from 400 ppm to 300 ppm means removing one quarter of the atmospheric CO2 i.e. removal of 175 billion tonnes CO2. The cost of removal of 175 billion tonnes CO2 as biochar has been estimated at $13 trillion to $53 trillion (US dollars) or 15-62% of the current world annual GDP of $85 trillion [8]. There is no indication (except from some warming-threatened island states and some prescient countries e.g. Denmark , Germany , Scotland , and China ) that the world is prepared to take serious action.
However it gets even worse. Methane (CH4) has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) 105 times greater than that of carbon dioxide (CO2) on a 20 year time frame and taking aerosol impacts into account. Accordingly, the 50 billion tonnes of CH4 predicted to be released from the Arctic Ocean seabed in coming decades [Professor Peter Wadhams et al,, University of Cambridge] ] is equivalent to 50 x 105 = 5,250 billion tonnes CO2-equivalent (CO2-e ) and the cost of $13 trillion to $53 trillion for 175 billion tonnes CO2 translates conservatively to $390 trillion to $1,590 trillion for conversion of 5,250 billion tonnes of CO2-e via CO2 to biochar . This estimate represents about 5 to 20 years of world GDP and tells even the most optimistic person that we are doomed unless radical action is taken now to stop Arctic warming immediately" [4].
Dr Gideon Polya commenting on Dr Nafeez Ahmed, “NASA-funded study: industrial civilization headed for “irreversible collapse”?”, Guardian, 15 March 2014: "Excellent article (I should declare that I am on the International Advisory Board of the UK-based Institute for Policy Research and Development of which Dr Nafeez Ahmed is the Executive Director) . Rational risk management that is crucial for societal safety (a notable example being aviation) successively involves (a) accurate data, (b) scientific analysis (the critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses) and (c) science-informed systemic change to minimize risk. Unfortunately, when it comes to consideration of the 3 key threats facing humanity - nuclear weapons, poverty (gross inequity) and resource depletion (including climate change) - Big Money gets in the way between science and public policy in our Murdochracies, Lobbyocracies and Corporatocracies and we have irrational risk management successively involving (a) censorship, lying, and intimidation, (b) anti-science spin (the selective use of asserted facts to support a partisan position) and (c) blame and shame that cripples crucial reportage (for numerous expert opinions Google "Are we doomed?")." [5].
Dr Gideon Polya commenting on the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers and the 2C "target"(2014): "The international consensus basis of the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers (2014) has resulted in a report that softens the present acute seriousness of unaddressed man-made climate change. Thus the IPCC Summary argues for a limitation of temperature rise to 2oC through limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution of the atmosphere to 450 ppm CO2 -equivalent but hard evidence says that we have already reached 478 ppm CO2 -equivalent, that 2oC is dangerous and essentially inevitable, and that the world will use up its Carbon Budget for avoiding 2oC within about 4 years" [6].
Dr Gideon Polya (2015): “Climate change and state-sanctioned corporate terrorism, carbon terrorism and climate terrorism. In 2009 the WBGU, which advises the German Government on climate change, estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2C temperature rise, the world must emit no more than 600 billion tonnes carbon dioxide (CO2) before zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is so high that the World will exceed this terminal budget in 3 years relative to 2015 [13]. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 (methane) on a 20 year time frame and with aerosol impacts considered is 105 times that of CO2. The 50 Gt (50 billion tonnes) of CH4 predicted to be released from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf in coming decades [14] is equivalent to 50 billion tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes CO2-equivalent/tonne CH4 = 5,250 tonnes CO2-e or about nine (9) times more than the world’s terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution budget. The world faces catastrophe unless global warming and this Arctic CH4 release can be stopped [6, 15, 16]. Unaddressed man-made climate change is set to exacerbate an already worsening climate genocide and cause 10 billion avoidable deaths this century leaving a predicted only 0.5 billion of Humanity alive [17]. Presently about 7 million people die annually from the effects of pollutants from carbon fuel burning [18] and 0.4 million people die annually from the effects of climate change [19, 20]. 17 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation but if climate change is not requisitely addressed an average of 100 million people will die avoidably each year this century [17]. This is state terrorism-sanctioned corporate terrorism, carbon terrorism and climate terrorism” [7].
[1]. Gideon Polya, “Climate racism, climate injustice and climate genocide – Australia, US & EU sabotage Copenhagen COP15”, Bellaciao, 14 December 2009: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article19422 .
[2]. Gideon Polya, “April 22, Earth Day: We Must Stop Climate Catastrophe”, Countercurrentsd, 22 April 2011: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya220411.htm .
[3]. Gideon Polya, posted comments to Nick Feik, “Green movement has been an abject failure”, The Age, On-line, National Times, 5 December 2012: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/green-movement-has-been-an-abject-failure-20121204-2at7t.html .
[4]. Gideon Polya, “100 ideas for climate change activists trying to save the Biosphere And Humanity”, Countercurrents, 10 August 2013: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya100813.htm .
[5]. Dr Gideon Polya commenting on Dr Nafeez Ahmed, “NASA-funded study: industrial civilization headed for “irreversible collapse”?”, Guardian, 15 March 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists.
[6]. Gideon Polya, “International consensus-based IPCC Summary For Policymakers (2014) downplays acute seriousness of Climate Crisis”, Countercurrents, 12 November, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya121114.htm .
[7]. Gideon Polya, “30 December Day Of Lamentation Over State Crime And State Terrorism - Nuclear Terrorism, Corporate Terrorism, Carbon Terrorism And Climate Terrorism”, Countercurrents, 29 December, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya291215.htm .
Gideon Polya (2019): “Eminent climate scientist Professor James Hansen has published a must-read, 55-page summary of the worsening climate emergency. In short, to correct the Earth’s presently disastrous energy imbalance we must urgently reduce the atmospheric CO2 to 342-373 ppm CO2 from the present disastrous 407 ppm CO2. The cost of extracting 1 ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere is $878-1803 billion but continuing inaction is not an option – the Paris commitments mean a 3C temperature rise and eventual inundation of coastal areas by a 15-25 meters sea level rise. Hope is not lost - resolutely promised prosecutions of politician, corporate and media climate criminals may finally force urgent climate action... There needs to be a new globally-endorsed social contract to the effect that significant, present-day climate criminals will be inescapably held to account with judicially-imposed penalties ranging up to life imprisonment with confiscation of all assets. Please tell everyone you can – there still is realistic hope that we can stop the present slide to disaster” (see Gideon Polya, “Resolutely promised prosecutions of climate criminals may force urgent climate action”, Countercurrents, 5 January 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/01/05/resolutely-promised-prosecutions-of-climate-criminals-may-force-urgent-climate-action/ ; James Hansen, “Climate change in a nutshell: the gathering storm”, Columbia University, 18 December 2018: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181206_Nutshell.pdf ).
Gideon Polya letter to MPs, media & activists re 2019 Climate Strike: "Dear fellow humanitarian, On Friday 20 September 3 million people worldwide and 0.3 million in Australia participated in the Climate Strike rallies organized by local high school students. My 2-sided placard at the Melbourne rally (100,000 people) said NO COAL OR GAS / 300 ppm CO2 – as soon as possible we must stop fossil fuel exploitation and return atmospheric CO2 to the pre-Industrial Revolution level of about 300 ppm CO2 (from the present disastrous 410 ppm CO2) for a safe and sustainable environment for all peoples and all species.
Assuming a damage-related Carbon Price of US$200 per tonne CO2-equivalent (Dr Chris Hope, Cambridge), the World has a Carbon Debt of about $200 trillion that is increasing at $10 trillion per year. By way of example, Australia, has a Carbon Debt (in US dollars) of $5 trillion that is increasing at $400 billion per year and at $40,000 per head per year for under-30 year old Australians. Australia has 0.3% of the world’s population but, with its greenhouse gas (GHG) exports included, contributes 5% of global GHG pollution. "
Australia is among world leaders for the following 15 climate criminal activities: (1) annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution, (2) methanogenic livestock exports, (3) natural gas exports, (4) recoverable shale gas reserves that can be accessed by hydraulic fracturing (fracking), (5) coal exports, (6) land clearing, deforestation and ecocide, (7) speciescide or species extinction, (8) coral reef destruction , (9) whale killing and extinction threat through global warming impacting on krill stocks, (10) terminal carbon pollution budget exceedance, (11) per capita Carbon Debt, (12) ultimately GHG generating iron ore exports, (13) climate change inaction, (14) Climate Genocide (its coal exports ultimately kill 75,000 people per year), and (15) increasing GHG pollution post-Paris .
When the young fully appreciate the enormous burden of inescapable Carbon Debt imposed on them by their forebears then there will be not 3 million but 30 million, and even 300 million, out in the streets. The grownups have failed – only the children can save the Planet through Climate Revolution now (non-violent of course), rejecting climate criminality, intergenerational inequity, intergenerational injustice, Climate Genocide, speciescide, ecocide, omnicide and terracide (for details and documentation see Gideon Polya, “Millions join Global School Climate Strike – we are running out of time”, Countercurrents, 22 September 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/09/millions-join-global-school-climate-strike-we-are-running-out-of-time ).
Dr Gideon Polya (quotes from a Senate Inquiry Submission) (2019): “Australia is among world leaders for animal species extinction, with 40 animal extinctions to its name ranking it 4th in the world after the US (237), French Polynesia (59) and Mauritius (44) [9]. While arguably involved in the disappearance of the megafauna, Indigenous Australians practiced sustainable use of the Australian ecosystems for 65,000 years. This horrendous Australian speciescide has come about through hunting particular species to extinction (notably the Tasmanian tiger) [6], ecocide and hence speciescide through land clearing in forestry, agriculture, industry and urban development (notably the iconic koala, Phascolarctos cinereus) [10] , over-exploitation and pollution of scarce water resources [11], and the deadly impact of feral animals (notably foxes, dogs, cats and the cane toad)…
Australia is among world leaders for the following 14 activities or parameter variously impacting the climate and hence species and ecosystem survival : (1) annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution… (14) climate genocide and approach towards omnicide and terracide … If one includes GHG pollution from combustion of its world-leading coal and gas exports, Australia (population 25 million) with 0.33% of the world’s population is responsible for 4.6% of the world’s GHG pollution… various climate experts (e.g. Dr James Lovelock, UK, , Professor Kevin Anderson, UK, Professor Clive Hamilton Australia, and Professor David Karoly, Australia) state that the sustainable human carrying capacity of the earth by 2100 may be a mere 1 billion or fewer…
There are some obvious ways of urgently dealing with this appalling Australian ecocide and speci[e]scide catastrophe that is disproportionately contributing to a relentless global movement towards omnicide and terracide: (1) rapid cessation of exports of coal, gas and methanogenically-derived meat; (2) rapid cessation of deforestation and other land clearing ; (3) rapid cessation of fossil fuel use for electricity and transport, and attendant subsidies; (5) massive re-afforestation and environmental restoration; (6) immediate priority given to the natural water flows in our rivers; (7) immediate cessation of any actions threatening Australia’s decimated biodiversity; (8) emergency action to wipe out damaging introduced plant and animal pests ; (9) urgent encouragement of rational and pro-environment lifestyle choices (vegetarianism, recycling, limited consumption and avoidance of air travel) , and (10) emergency action to preserve what is left of Australia’s indigenous flora and fauna. For those neoliberals scoffing at these proposals, let me simply reiterate that every species is priceless, and not for this generation to destroy” (Gideon Polya, “Submission from Dr Gideon Polya to the Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Faunal Extinction Crisis (12 August 2019)”, Submission #38: file:///C:/Users/Gideon/AppData/Local/Temp/Sub38-2.pdf .)
Pope Francis in his Encyclical letter “Laudato si'” (“Praise be”) on the looming threat of man-made climate change (2015): “[Section 20] Some forms of pollution are part of people's daily experience. Exposure to atmospheric pollutants produces a broad spectrum of health hazards, especially for the poor, and [already] causes millions of premature deaths... If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us. A rise in the sea level, for example, can create extremely serious situations, if we consider that a quarter of the world's population lives on the coast or nearby, and that the majority of our megacities are situated in coastal areas. Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet's capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world. The effects of the present imbalance can only be reduced by our decisive action, here and now. We need to reflect on our accountability before those who will have to endure the dire consequences” (Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter “Laudato si”, 2015: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html and Pope Francis quoted in “Key excerpts from the Pope’s encyclical on the environment”, ABC News, 19 June 2015: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-19/pope-francis-warns-humanity-about-pace-of-consumption/6557822 ).
Cecil F. Powell (British physicist,and 1950 Nobel Laureate in Physics for development of the photographic method of studying nuclear processes and for the resultant discovery of the pion (pi-meson)) co-signed the Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with 10 other eminent scientists (all but Infeld were or became Nobel Laureates) that called for “an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons” and concluded with the resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.” (The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955): http://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/ ).
Vijay Prashad (professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut and the author of 18 books, including “Arab Spring, Libyan Winter”, “The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South” and “The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution”) (2017): “It is not as if the Paris or Kyoto agreements would have been sufficient to stem the tide of adverse climate change. Even those were too mild, too friendly to corporations that make their money destroying the planet. But at least these agreements forced governments to accept that human activity—namely industrial capitalism—had hastened the destruction of nature. Now, Trump’s Energy Secretary Rick Perry says openly that carbon dioxide emissions are not the main drivers of climate change. Perry pointed the finger of blame at ‘ocean waters,’ allowing industrial capitalism an exit from responsibility. Why bother with alternatives to carbon when there is no ‘evidence’ that such energy sources bring the planet closer to annihilation?…Will a ‘small’ nuclear exchange be contemplated for the Korean Peninsula and for Eastern Asia in general? We are between climate catastrophe and wars of extinction, with the final administration provoking both at hyper-speed. Trump plays the role of Judas in Gaudi’s sculpture. Jesus speaks to him about betrayal. But he is looking over Judas’ shoulder. He is asking the rest of us if we are participants in the betrayal. What are you doing today to prevent Trump's agenda from driving our planet closer to extinction?” (Vijay Prashad, “Why the Trump Administration could be America’s last. We are between climate catastrophe and wars if extinction”, Alternet, 21 June 2017: http://www.alternet.org/world/why-trump-administration-could-be-americas-last ).
Prince Charles at the 50th meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (2020): “Global warming, climate change and the devastating loss of biodiversity are the greatest threats humanity has ever faced and one largely of our own creation. Do we want to go down in history as the people who did nothing to bring the world back from the brink in time to restore the balance?... What good is all the extra wealth in the world gained from business as usual if you can do nothing with it except watch it burn in catastrophic conditions. We simply cannot waste any more time. The only limit is our willingness to act, and the time to act is now" (Prince Charles quoted in Maani Truu, “Prince Charles calls on leaders to take “revolutionary” climate action”, SBS News, 24 January 2020: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/prince-charles-calls-on-leaders-to-take-revolutionary-climate-action ).
Dr Ron Prinn (Professor of Atmospheric Science in 83-Nobel-Laureate MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science (CGCS), Co-Director of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change (JPSPGC), and who studies the chemical evolution of atmospheres): “What’s not appreciated is that there are a whole lot of other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that have fundamentally changed the composition of our atmosphere since pre-industrial times: methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons. The screen of your laptop is probably manufactured in Taiwan, Japan, and Eastern China by a process that releases nitrogen trifluoride—release of 1 ton of nitrogen trifluoride is equivalent to 16,800 tons of CO2. But there is a fix to that—the contaminated air in the factory could be incinerated to destroy the nitrogen trifluoride before it’s released into the environment. Many of these other gases are increasing percentage-wise faster than CO2 . In the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), we continuously measure over 40 of these other GHGs in real time over the globe. If you convert these other GHGs into their equivalent amounts of CO2 that will have the same effect on climate, and add them to the NOAA measurements of CO2, you find that we are actually at 478 ppm of CO2 equivalents right now. In fact, we passed the 400 ppm back in about 1985. So, 478 not 400 is the real number to watch. That’s the number people should be talking about when it comes to climate change” [1].
[1]. Ron Prinn, “400 ppm CO2? Add other GHGs and its equivalent to 478 ppm”, Oceans at MIT, 6 June 2013: http://oceans.mit.edu/featured-stories/5-questions-mits-ron-prinn-400-ppm-threshold .
[Editor’s note: the international consensus basis of the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers (2014) has resulted in a report that softens the present acute seriousness of unaddressed man-made climate change. Thus the IPCC Summary argues for a limitation of temperature rise to 2oC through limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution of the atmosphere to 450 ppm CO2 -equivalent but hard evidence says that we have already reached 478 ppm CO2 -equivalent, that 2oC is dangerous and essentially inevitable, and that the world will use up its Carbon Budget for a 75% probability of avoiding 2oC within about 4 years (see Gideon Polya, “International consensus-based IPCC Summary For Policymakers (2014) downplays acute seriousness of Climate Crisis”, Countercurrents, 12 November, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya121114.htm )].
The Nobel Peace Prize 1995 was awarded to Polish physicist Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Nobel Prize.org: “The Pugwash Conferences take their name from the fishing village of Pugwash, Nova Scotia, site of the first meeting in 1957 which was attended by 22 eminent scientists (seven from the United States, three each from the Soviet Union and Japan, two each from the United Kingdom and Canada, and one each from Australia, Austria, China, France, and Poland). The stimulus for this first Pugwash meeting was the "Manifesto" issued in 1955 by Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, and also signed by Max Born, Percy Bridgman, Leopold Infeld, Frederic Joliot-Curie, Herman Muller, Linus Pauling, Cecil Powell, Joseph Rotblat, and Hideki Yukawa, which called upon scientists of all political persuasions to assemble to discuss the threat posed to civilization by the advent of thermonuclear weapons. …lines of communication provided by Pugwash played useful background roles in helping lay the groundwork for the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and SALT I accords, the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, the Intermediate-range theater Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty, as well as the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. Despite subsequent trends of generally improving East-West relations and the emergence of a much wider array of unofficial channels of communication, Pugwash meetings have continued to play an important role in bringing together key scientists, analysts and policy advisers for sustained, in-depth discussions of the crucial arms-control issues of the day, particularly in the areas of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The Pugwash Workshops on Nuclear Weapons have brought together government and military figures with scientists and policy analysts to keep open lines of communication on such sensitive issues as: initiatives to limit missile defenses that led to the 1972 ABM Treaty; the Euromissile and Star Wars controversies of the 1980s; the dangers posed by the breakup of the Soviet Union regarding fissile material and the decommissioning of nuclear systems; the emergence of India and Pakistan as nuclear powers and the threat of additional proliferation; and the ramifications of US plans for national missile defense (NMD) and the implications of NMD for nuclear stability and arms control” (see “Nobel Peace Prize 1995 Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs”, Nobel Prize.org: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1995/pugwash-history.html ).
Adrian Raftery et al. (climate scientists) (2017): “The recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections to 2100 give likely ranges of global temperature increase in four scenarios for population, economic growth and carbon use1. However, these projections are not based on a fully statistical approach. Here we use a country-specific version of Kaya’s identity to develop a statistically based probabilistic forecast of CO2 emissions and temperature change to 2100. Using data for 1960–2010, including the UN’s probabilistic population projections for all countries, we develop a joint Bayesian hierarchical model for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and carbon intensity. We find that the 90% interval for cumulative CO2 emissions includes the IPCC’s two middle scenarios but not the extreme ones. The likely range of global temperature increase is 2.0–4.9 °C, with median 3.2 °C and a 5% (1%) chance that it will be less than 2 °C (1.5 °C). Population growth is not a major contributing factor. Our model is not a ‘business as usual’ scenario, but rather is based on data which already show the effect of emission mitigation policies. Achieving the goal of less than 1.5 °C warming will require carbon intensity to decline much faster than in the recent past” (Adrian E. Raftery, Alec Zimmer, Dargan M. W. Frierson, Richard Startz & Peiran Liu, “Less than2oC in warming by 2100 unlikely”, Nature Climate Change volume 7, pages 637–641, 2017 : https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3352?foxtrotcallback=true#affil-auth ).
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf (Professor of Ocean Physics at Potsdam University Germany (2015): “The North Atlantic between Newfoundland and Ireland is practically the only region of the world that has defied global warming and even cooled. Last winter there even was the coldest on record – while globally it was the hottest on record. Our recent study (Rahmstorf et al. 2015) attributes this to a weakening of the Gulf Stream System, which is apparently unique in the last thousand years… If the circulation weakens too much it can even completely break down – the AMOC [Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation; deep southward flow, northward upper flow; part of the global thermohaline circulation] has a well-known “tipping point”… 16 experts interviewed saw already at moderate global warming (2-4 °C) a probability of a ‘tipping’ (major reorganisation) of the flow between 5 and 40 percent. With strong global warming (4-8 °C) this probability was even estimated as between 20 and 65 percent” Stefan Rahmstorf , “What’s Going On In The North Atlantic?”, Countercurrents, 24 March, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/rahmstorf240315.htm ).
[Editor's note: of particular relevance to Australia and South Pacific and Indian Ocean Island States in relation to severe cyclones, is his Fig.4 “Temperature anomaly map for the past december-january-february, from NOAA” which shows that most of the Indian Ocean and Western South Pacific “much warmer than average” and big areas of the Western South Pacific “record warmest”].
V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego) conclude that the world is already committed to a warming of 2.4°C: “The observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) since the preindustrial era has most likely committed the world to a warming of 2.4°C (1.4°C to 4.3°C) above the preindustrial surface temperatures. The committed warming is inferred from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of the greenhouse forcing and climate sensitivity. The estimated warming of 2.4°C is the equilibrium warming above preindustrial temperatures that the world will observe even if GHG concentrations are held fixed at their 2005 concentration levels but without any other anthropogenic forcing such as the cooling effect of aerosols. The range of 1.4°C to 4.3°C in the committed warming overlaps and surpasses the currently perceived threshold range of 1°C to 3°C for dangerous anthropogenic interference with many of the climate-tipping elements such as the summer arctic sea ice, Himalayan–Tibetan glaciers, and the Greenland Ice Sheet. IPCC models suggest that ≈25% (0.6°C) of the committed warming has been realized as of now. About 90% or more of the rest of the committed warming of 1.6°C will unfold during the 21st century, determined by the rate of the unmasking of the aerosol cooling effect by air pollution abatement laws and by the rate of release of the GHGs-forcing stored in the oceans. The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries. Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4°C... It is now recognized that DAI [Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference] must involve a range of threshold values of global and regional surface temperature change (5) depending on the elements of the climate system that are being impacted by the warming. This perception has led to the notion of climate tipping elements (6), some of which are hypothesized to be triggered by global warming in the range of 1°C to 2°C, and many others when global warming is in the range of 3°C to 5°C (see Fig. 1 ) [Arctic summer sea ice, Himalayan Tibetan glaciers, Greenland ice sheet at ca 2C; Amazon rainforest at ca 3C; ENSO, Thermohaline circulation , West Antarctic ice sheet at ca 4C],” [1].
[1]. V. Ramanathan and Y. Feng, “On avoiding dangerous interference with the climate system: formidable challenges ahead”, PNAS, 17 September 2008: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/16/0803838105.abstract
RANDERS: Professor Jorgen Randers, climate pessimist, "2052 - A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years"
Jorgen Randers is professor at the Norwegian Business School BI and co-author of The Limits to Growth in 1972, the Report to the Club of Rome, and its two sequels. His most recent book, published in May 2012, is 2052 - A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years, also a report to The Club of Rome (see: http://www.climatecodered.org/2012/11/systematic-short-termism-climate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29 ).
Professor Jorgen Randers (2012): “I am a climate pessimist. I believe (regrettably) that humanity will not meet the climate challenge with sufficient strength to save our grandchildren from living in a climate-damaged world. Humanity (regrettably) will not make what sacrifice is necessary today in order to ensure a better life for our ancestors forty years hence. The reason is that we are narrowly focused on maximum well-being in the short term. This short-termism is reflected in the systems of governance that we have chosen to dominate our lives: Both democracy and capitalism place more emphasis on costs today that on benefits forty years in the future. The global result of this human myopia is described in my book 2052 – A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years, a report to the Club of Rome commemorating the forty year anniversary of The Limits to Growth. The 2052 book forecasts a world of plus 2°C in 2050, and the likelihood of run-away climate change in the second half of the 21st century. Its website www.2052.info gives the statistical detail… In sum, I don’t believe that the free market, regulation, political leadership, or public education will solve the climate problem in time. Capitalism is unable to handle this long term challenge, and democratic society is unwilling to modify the market. In my view, we need something stronger, something that can counter the root problem: Man’s short-term nature. His tendency to disregard the long term consequences of current action. What can be done? Can democratic society be modified to solve the climate challenge? Eco-dictatorship may be to go too far. But something is needed to temper the short-termism of the nation state, probably something at the supranational level. For example a global central bank for climate gas emissions, introduced through democratic means – like the normal central banks. This is easier said than done. But still necessary. Otherwise, I predict, it will be the Chinese who solve the global climate challenge - singlehandedly. Through a sequence of 5-year plans established with a clear long term vision, and executed without asking regular support from the Chinese. They are already well on the way, for the benefit of our grandchildren.” [1].
[1]. Jorgen Randers, “Systematic short-termism: Climate, capitalism and democracy”, Climate Code red, 2012: http://www.climatecodered.org/2012/11/systematic-short-termism-climate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29 .
“RealClimate. Climate science from climate scientists” in their own words: “RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum” (see: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/ ). .
Real Climate on the odds of exceeding a predefined threshold of 2°C as a function of CO2 emissions (2009): “There is a climate splash in Nature this week, including a cover showing a tera-tonne weight, presumably meant to be made of carbon (could it be graphite?), dangling by a thread over the planet, and containing two new articles (Allen et al and Meinshausen et al), a “News & Views” piece written by two of us, and a couple commentaries urging us to “prepare to adapt to at least 4° C” and to think about what the worst case scenario (at 1000 ppm CO2) might look like. At the heart of it are the two papers which calculate the odds of exceeding a predefined threshold of 2°C as a function of CO2 emissions. Both find that the most directly relevant quantity is the total amount of CO2 ultimately released, rather than a target atmospheric CO2 concentration or emission rate. This is an extremely useful result, giving us a clear statement of how our policy goals should be framed. We have a total emission quota; if we keep going now, we will have to cut back more quickly later… Both papers come to the same broad conclusion, summarized in our figure, that unless humankind puts on the brakes very quickly and aggressively (i.e. global reductions of 80% by 2050), we face a high probability of driving climate beyond a 2°C threshold taken by both studies as a “danger limit”… We feel compelled to note that even a “moderate” warming of 2°C stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society, leading potentially to the conflict and suffering that go with failed states and mass migrations. Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture. Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8°C of warming so far, calling 2°C a danger limit seems to us pretty cavalier.” [1].
[1]. Real Climate, “Hit the brakes hard”, 29 April 2009: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/hit-the-brakes-hard/ .
Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, OM, FRS (born 23 June 1942 in York) is a British cosmologist, astronomer and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal since 1995 and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge since 2004. He was President of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees,_Baron_Rees_of_Ludlow ).
Martin Rees on the question “Are we all doomed? (2011): “The threat of global nuclear annihilation involving tens of thousands of bombs has been in abeyance since the end of the cold war. But, in future decades, a global political realignment could lead to a stand-off between new superpowers which could be handled less well or less luckily than the Cuban crisis was. In the meantime, there is more risk than ever that smaller nuclear arsenals will be used in a regional context, or even by terrorists. But other threats loom larger. Devastation could arise insidiously rather than suddenly, through unsustainable pressure on energy supplies, food, water and other natural resources. The world's population is projected to reach nine billion by 2050. The bigger the population becomes, the greater these pressures will be - especially if the developing world narrows the gap between itself and the developed world in its per-capita consumption… Humankind's collective footprint is growing. It may irreversibly degrade our environment as our numbers grow and we each consume more. Advanced technology threatens us with other vulnerabilities… There seems to be no scientific impediment to achieving a sustainable world beyond 2050, in which the developing countries have narrowed the gap with the developed and all people benefit from further advances that could have as great and benign an impact on society as information technology. But the intractable politics and sociology - the gap between what could be and what really happens - engender pessimism." [1].
[1]. Martin Rees, “Are we all doomed?”, New Statesman, 9 June 2011: http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2011/06/world-planet-rees-future .
Senator Lee Rhiannon is a Greens Senator in the Australian Parliament. The Greens are an important pro-environment, pro-human rights political party in Australia (see: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/australian-heatwaves-hotter-longer-climate-council ).
The Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon on the worsening Australian heatwave threat (SE Australia in January 2014 suffered one of its worst ever heatwaves with temperatures over 40C for days and peaking at 46C) (2014): “ “The Climate Council has warned that global warming will bring more extreme weather and heatwaves and we can’t pretend it’s not going to happen. We must prepare for it and stop it getting worse by reducing greenhouse pollution. The clean energy laws are already reducing greenhouse pollution and creating jobs. It really is time for [Coalition PM] Tony Abbott to abandon his ideological rejection of the climate science and put the Australian community first.” [1].
[1]. Oliver Milman, “Australian heatwaves getting hotter and longer, says Climate Council”, Guardian, 16 January 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/australian-heatwaves-hotter-longer-climate-council .
Dr Eric Rignot is a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He is the lead author of a 2014 landmark scientific paper on West Antarctica revealing that the collapse of a large part of Antarctica is now unstoppable (see: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/climate-change-antarctica-glaciers-melting-global-warming-nasa ).
Dr Eric Rignot on the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet (2014): “Last Monday, we hosted a Nasa conference on the state of the West Antarctic ice sheet…
We announced that we had collected enough observations to conclude that the retreat of ice in the Amundsen sea sector of West Antarctica was unstoppable, with major consequences – it will mean that sea levels will rise one metre worldwide. What's more, its disappearance will likely trigger the collapse of the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which comes with a sea level rise of between three and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide. Two centuries – if that is what it takes – may seem like a long time, but there is no red button to stop this process. Reversing the climate system to what it was in the 1970s seems unlikely; we can barely get a grip on emissions that have tripled since the Kyoto protocol, which was designed to hit reduction targets. Slowing down climate warming remains a good idea, however – the Antarctic system will at least take longer to get to this point…
What this means is that we may be ultimately responsible for triggering the fast retreat of West Antarctica. This part of the continent was likely to retreat anyway, but we probably pushed it there faster. It remains difficult to put a timescale on it, because the computer models are not good enough yet, but it could be within a couple of centuries, as I noted. There is also a bigger picture than West Antarctica. The Amundsen sea sector is not the only vulnerable part of the continent. East Antarctica includes marine-based sectors that hold more ice. One of them, Totten glacier, holds the equivalent of seven metres of global sea level. Controlling climate warming may ultimately make a difference not only about how fast West Antarctic ice will melt to sea, but also whether other parts of Antarctica will take their turn. Several "candidates" are lined up, and we seem to have figured a way to push them out of equilibrium even before warming of air temperature is strong enough to melt snow and ice at the surface. Unabated climate warming of several degrees over the next century is likely to speed up the collapse of West Antarctica, but it could also trigger irreversible retreat of marine-based sectors of East Antarctica. Whether we should do something about it is simply a matter of common sense. And the time to act is now; Antarctica is not waiting for us.” [1].
Eric Rignot et al (2014): “Abstract. We measure the grounding line retreat of glaciers draining the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica using Earth Remote Sensing (ERS-1/2) satellite radar interferometry from 1992 to 2011. Pine Island Glacier retreated 31 km at its center, with most retreat in 2005–2009 when the glacier un-grounded from its ice plain. Thwaites Glacier retreated 14 km along its fast-flow core and 1 to 9 km along the sides. Haynes Glacier retreated 10 km along its flanks. Smith/Kohler glaciers retreated the most, 35 km along its ice plain, and its ice shelf pinning points are vanishing. These rapid retreats proceed along regions of retrograde bed elevation mapped at a high spatial resolution using a mass conservation technique (MC) that removes residual ambiguities from prior mappings. Upstream of the 2011 grounding line positions, we find no major bed obstacle that would prevent the glaciers from further retreat and draw down the entire basin.” [2].
[1]. Eric Rignot, “Global warming: it’s a point of no return in West Antarctica. What happens next?”, The Observer, 18 May 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/climate-change-antarctica-glaciers-melting-global-warming-nasa .
[2]. E. Rignot, J. Mouginot, M. Morlighem, H. Seroussi and B. Scheuchl, “Widespread, rapid grounding line retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith and Kohler glacier, West Antarctica from 1992 to 2011”, Geophysical Research Letters, 2014: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060140/abstract .
Dr Paul Craig Roberts (economist, academic, former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and Business Week, nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate, author of numerous books, and served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the "Father of Reaganomics”) (2015): “I have been around for a long time and have experienced more than most. The current situation in my experience is the most dangerous time of all for humanity. Nuclear weapons are no longer restrained by the Cold War MAD doctrine. Washington has released them into pre-emptive first strike form. The targets of these pre-emptive strikes–Russia and China–know it, because Washington proudly proclaims its immorality in public documents describing its war doctrine. The result is to maximize the chance of nuclear war. If you were Russia and China, and you knew that Washington had a war doctrine that permits a surprise nuclear attack, would you sit there waiting while Washington cranks up its anti-Russian and anti-Chinese propaganda machine, demonizing both countries as a threat to “freedom and democracy”? The fools in Washington are playing with nuclear fire. Noam Chomsky points out that in a less dangerous time than currently exists, we came very close to nuclear war. https://philosophynow.org/issues/107/Noam_Chomsky_on_Institutional_Stupidity ...
The American public needs to understand the consequences of Washington’s illegality and criminality. On the one hand it means that those subject to Washington’s aggression have to endure war crimes, but on the other hand it means a growing hatred for America. As Washington’s easy targets are used up, Washington engages countries that can reply to force with force. Unless the neoconservatives are ejected from the Obama regime and banned from inclusion in any future American government, mushroom clouds will go up over Washington, New York, Boston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, Cleveland, Chicago. The American mid-west, which hosts the ICBM silos, will become uninhabitable except by cockroaches. Americans, and the populations of the American puppet states, desperately need to understand that Washington is incapable of speaking the truth about anything. Washington is an evil force. Washington is Sauron. Washington is Satan.Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. Look at Libya. Look at Syria. Look at Somalia. Look at Ukraine. Nothing but destruction comes from Washington. Will life on earth be Washington’s next victim?” “ (Paul Craig Roberts, “A Middle East Holocaust”, Paul Craig Roberts, 30 March 2015: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/03/30/middle-east-holocaust-paul-craig-roberts/ ).
Johan Rockström ( director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany) (2019): We will have lost all the reefs decades before 2100 – at somewhere between 2C and 4C… It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that [at 4C]. There will be a rich minority of people who survive with modern lifestyles, no doubt, but it will be a turbulent, conflict-ridden world”( Johan Rockström quoted in Gaia Vince, “The heat is on over the climate crisis . Only radical measures will work”, Guardian, 19 May 2019: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/18/climate-crisis-heat-is-on-global-heating-four-degrees-2100-change-way-we-live ).
Dr Joeri Rogelj is a scientist at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETH; the 31-Nobel-Laureate Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich) (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/global-temperature-goals_n_2404322.html ).
Dr Joeri Rogelj (Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETH; the 31-Nobel-Laureate Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich) commenting on the important scientific paper by Joeri Rogelj, David L. McCollum, Andy Reisinger, Malte Meinshausen & Keywan Riahi and entitled “Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation” (Nature 493, 79–83, 3 January 2013): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7430/full/nature11787.html ): “The uncertainties about how the climate system will respond have been previously used as an argument to postpone action until we have learned more. We show that such a delay strategy is unsupported and that the most important factor for staying below 2 degrees C is the timing of when we start tackling this problem at a global scale…When delaying action by two more decades, chances to stay below 2 degrees C become very low and we find that they cannot be improved later on, no matter how much money we throw at the problem in the future… If one can continue to prosper in the future and deliver the same services with less overall energy, this will in the first place save you money, but also very significantly improve your national energy security situation. It seems to me that such benefits should be appealing to any decision-maker who cares about the long-term development and prosperity of his or her country." [1].
[1]. Dr Joeri Rogelj quoted in Stephanie Pappas, “Global temperature goals could become impossible with climate inaction, study finds” (Huffington Post, 5 January 2013: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/global-temperature-goals_n_2404322.html .
Anna Rose (Australian author, activist, environmentalist, co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, AYCC, and formerly Chair of the AYCC board.) on Earth Hour [from 8.30pm Australian EST, Saturday 29 March 2014] action to help save the Great Barrier Reef (2014): “The impacts of climate change are already visible, in every corner of our planet. We’ve already changed the acidity of the oceans and the composition of the atmosphere. But the story of how climate change is affecting our Great Barrier Reef is one of the most tangible and heartbreaking. The story of climate change can be seen and felt on the reef – in acidifying oceans, bleaching coral, increasing sand and ocean temperature, more extreme storm damage to the reef, and rising sea levels. Our reef is running out of time, but those of us alive today can be the ones to help[ save it. And just because a situation is urgent does not mean it is too late. Earth Hour was founded on the principle that no one can do everything, but that everyone can do something. Earth Hour [for the reef] provides a moment for you – yes you – to have a conversation you normally might not… Host an Earth Hour gathering with friend and family, or attend a community gathering. Then at 8.30pm (Australian EST; Saturday 29 March 2014] join the citizens of 152 nations and 7001 cities around the world in turning out your lights to make a stand for the reef”. [1].
[1]. Anna Rose, Preface to Dr Selina Ward, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg [preface by Anna Rose], “Lights out for the reef”, prepared for Earth Hour 2014 [Saturday 29 March], WWF: http://earthhour.org.au/LIGHTS_OUT_FOR_THE_REEF_Earth_Hour_2014.pdf .
Joseph Rotblat (Polish physicist who notably left the Manhattan Project on the grounds of conscience and whose work on nuclear fallout contributed to the ratification of the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; secretary-general of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs from their founding until 1973 and shared, with the Pugwash Conferences, the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize for efforts toward nuclear disarmament) co-signed the Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with 10 other eminent scientists (all but Infeld were or became Nobel Laureates) that called for “an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons” and concluded with the resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.” (The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955): http://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/ ).
Alan Rusbridger (editor of the UK Guardian for 20 years) on increased Guardian reportage on man-made climate change (2015): “This summer I am stepping down after 20 years of editing the Guardian.… So, in the time left to me as editor, I thought I would try to harness the Guardian’s best resources to describe what is happening and what – if we do nothing – is almost certain to occur, a future that one distinguished scientist has termed as “incompatible with any reasonable characterisation of an organised, equitable and civilised global community”.… The coming debate is about two things: what governments can do to attempt to regulate, or otherwise stave off, the now predictably terrifying consequences of global warming beyond 2C by the end of the century. And how we can prevent the states and corporations which own the planet’s remaining reserves of coal, gas and oil from ever being allowed to dig most of it up. We need to keep them in the ground… There are three really simple numbers which explain this (and if you have even more appetite for the subject, read the excellent July 2012 Rolling Stone piece by the author and campaigner Bill McKibben, which – building on the work of the Carbon Tracker Initiative – first spelled them out).
1. 2C: There is overwhelming agreement – from governments, corporations, NGOs, banks, scientists, you name it – that a rise in temperatures of more than 2C by the end of the century would lead to disastrous consequences for any kind of recognised global order.
2. 565 gigatons: “Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by mid-century and still have some reasonable hope of staying below 2C,” is how McKibben crisply puts it. Few dispute that this idea of a global “carbon budget” is broadly right.
3. 2,795 gigatons: This is the amount of carbon contained in the proven coal, oil and gas reserves of fossil fuel companies and states – ie the fuel we are planning to extract and burn… We need to keep it in the ground.” [1].
[1]. Alan Rusbridger, “Climate change: why the Guardian is putting the threat to Earth front and centre”, Guardian, 6 March 2015: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/climate-change-guardian-threat-to-earth-alan-rusbridger .
Bertrand Russell (British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, social critic, political activist ad 1950 Nobel Laureate for Literature for his humanitarian writing) co-signed the Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with 10 other eminent scientists (all but Infeld were or became Nobel Laureates) that called for “an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons” and concluded with the resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.” (The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955): http://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/ ).
The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) : “In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft…
Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments3 would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First, any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second, the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step. Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West. There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.
Resolution: We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”
Signatories [all but Infeld were or became Nobel Laureates]: Max Born, Percy W. Bridgman, Albert Einstein, Leopold Infeld, Frederic Joliot-Curie, Herman J. Muller, Linus Pauling, Cecil F. Powell, Joseph Rotblat, Bertrand Russell, Hideki Yukawa” ( The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955): http://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/ ) .
Bertrand Russell- Albert Einstein Manifesto ( July 9, 1955): “Here then is the problem that we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race, or shall mankind renounce war?… There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest” (Albert Camus quoted in John Scales Avery, “A World Federation”, Chapter 5, “Nuclear weapons as collective punishment”, Countercurrents, 11 December 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/12/11/a-world-federation-chapter-5-nuclear-weapons-as-collective-punishment/ ; John Scales Avery, “A World Federation”: http://eacpe.org/app/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-World-Federation-by-John-Scales-Avery.pdf ).
Sam Carana (very likely the moniker for collection of climate scientists and/or science-informed activists) (2015): “ Sediments underneath the Arctic Ocean hold vast amounts of methane. Just one part of the Arctic Ocean alone, the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS, rectangle on map below, from the methane page), holds up to 1700 Gt of methane. A sudden release of just 3% of this amount could add over 50 Gt of methane to the atmosphere, and experts consider such an amount to be ready for release at any time “ (Sam Carana, “Strong winds and high waves hit Arctic Ocean”, Arctic News, 8 December2015: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/ ).
[Editor’s note: The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 on a 20 year time frame and with aerosol impacts considered is 105 times that of CO2 [3, 4]. The German WBGU (2009) and the Australian Climate Commission (2013) have estimated that no more than 600 billion tonnes of CO2 can be emitted between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050 if the world is to have a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2C temperature rise [5, 6]. The 50 Gt (billion tonnes) CH4 in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is thus equivalent to 50 billion tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes CO2-equivalent/tonne CH4 = 5,250 tonnes CO2-e or about NINE(9) times more than the world’s terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution budget. We are doomed unless we can stop this Arctic CH4 release].
John Sauven (executive director of Greenpeace) responding to 2007 IPCC report (2007): "The EU needs to adopt a science-based cap on emissions, ditch plans for dirty new coal plants and nuclear power stations that will give tiny emission cuts at enormous and dangerous cost, end aviation expansion and ban wasteful products like incandescent lightbulbs" (John Sauven and IPCC 2007 report quoted in Cahal Milmo, ““Too late to avoid global warming”, say scientists”, The Independent, 19 September 2007: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/too-late-to-avoid-global-warming-say-scientists-402800.html ).
According to Rutgers Today (the news outlet for Rutgers, the State University if New Jersey): ” In a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Morgan Schaller and James Wright contend that following a doubling in carbon dioxide levels, the surface of the ocean turned acidic over a period of weeks or months and global temperatures rose by 5 degrees centigrade – all in the space of about 13 years… Wright, a professor of earth and planetary sciences in the School of Arts and Sciences and Schaller, a research associate, say the finding is significant in considering modern-day climate change.“We’ve shown unequivocally what happens when CO2 increases dramatically – as it is now, and as it did 55 million years ago”Wright said. “The oceans become acidic and the world warms up dramatically. Our current carbon release has been going on for about 150 years, and because the rate is relatively slow, about half the CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans and forests, causing some popular confusion about the warming effects of CO2. But 55 million years ago, a much larger amount of carbon was all released nearly instantaneously, so the effects are much clearer” (see Ken Branson, “New finding shows that climate change can happen in a geological instant ”, Rutgers News, 6 October 2013: http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/new-finding-shows-climate-change-can-happen-geological-instant/20131003#.Ul42lFP3S42 ).
A Wikipedia report on this in relation to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) states that “New research published in 2013 indicates that in only 13 years 3000 gigatons of carbon were released, followed by a much faster rise in temperatures than previously thought” but explains that the precise cause of this events and the associated max extinctions is not clear an d states that “There is a debate about whether there was a large enough amount of methane hydrate to be a major carbon source; a recent paper proposed that was the case. The present-day global methane hydrate reserve is poorly constrained, but is mostly considered to be between 2,000 ~ 10,000 Gt. However, because the global ocean bottom temperatures were ~6 degree C higher than today, which implies a much smaller volume of sediment hosting gas hydrate than today, the global amount of hydrate before the PETM has been thought to be much less than present-day estimates” (see “Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)”, Wikilpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum ).
A report on this discovery in RE New Economy states: “Significantly, the editor of this new study is none other than the “dean of climate scientists,” Wallace Broecker who popularized the term “global warming.” Two decades ago, Broecker said, “The climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking at it with sticks.” He stood by that warning in a 2012 interview: “We’re in for big trouble,” he says matter-of-factly. “There’s been a “true disruption of the basic climate of the planet.” “My point [with the 'angry beast' metaphor] was that by adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, we were poking our climate system without being sure how it would respond,” he says. At the rate we are spewing carbon pollution into the atmosphere, one might even say we are punching the climate beast in the nose. Paleoclimate studies, including this new one, suggests that is a very, very bad move.” (see Joe Romm, “Earth may have warmed 5C in 13 years when CO2 doubled”, RE New Economy, 14 October 2013: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/petm-shocker-co2-levels-doubled-55-million-years-ago-earth-may-warmed-9f-13-years-61702 ).
Note: There is 700- 750 GtC in atmosphere (mostly as 750 x 3.7 = circa 2,800 Gt CO2; half due to historical fossil fuel combustion) (see “2011 climate change course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course ). Dr Chris Hope and colleagues on the threat of 50Gt methane from East Siberian Arctic Shelf: (2013): “Economic time bomb. As the amount of Arctic sea ice declines at an unprecedented rate, the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates, exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly” (see Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams, “Vast costs of Arctic change”, Nature, 499, 25 July 2013: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/499401a.html ).
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 on a 20 year time frame and with aerosol impacts considered is 105 times that of CO2. The German WBGU (2009) and the Australian Climate Commission (2013) have estimated that no more than 600 billion tonnes of CO2 can be emitted between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050 if the world is to have a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2C temperature rise. The 50 Gt (billion tonnes) CH4 in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is thus equivalent to 50 billion tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes CO2-equivalent/tonne CH4 = 5,250 tonnes CO2-e or about NINE(9) times more than the world’s terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution budget. We are doomed unless we can stop this Arctic CH4 release. We are evidently facing a PETM scenario in coming decades.
Brett R. Scheffers et al. (2016): “Climate change impacts have now been documented across every ecosystem on Earth, despite an average warming of only ~1°C so far. Here, we describe the full range and scale of climate change effects on global biodiversity that have been observed in natural systems. To do this, we identify a set of core ecological processes (32 in terrestrial and 31 each in marine and freshwater ecosystems) that underpin ecosystem functioning and support services to people. Of the 94 processes considered, 82% show evidence of impact from climate change in the peer-reviewed literature. Examples of observed impacts from meta-analyses and case studies go beyond well-established shifts in species ranges and changes to phenology and population dynamics to include disruptions that scale from the gene to the ecosystem… Most ecological processes now show responses to anthropogenic climate change. In terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems, species are changing genetically, physiologically, morphologically, and phenologically and are shifting their distributions, which affects food webs and results in new interactions. Disruptions scale from the gene to the ecosystem and have documented consequences for people, including unpredictable fisheries and crop yields, loss of genetic diversity in wild crop varieties, and increasing impacts of pests and diseases. In addition to the more easily observed changes, such as shifts in flowering phenology, we argue that many hidden dynamics, such as genetic changes, are also taking place. Understanding shifts in ecological processes can guide human adaptation strategies. In addition to reducing greenhouse gases, climate action and policy must therefore focus equally on strategies that safeguard biodiversity and ecosystems” (Brett R. Scheffers et al. “The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people”, Science, 11 Nov 2016,
Vol. 354, Issue 6313: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671 ).
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (EU chief climate change adviser), “The first law of humanity is not to kill your children” (Quotefancy: https://quotefancy.com/quote/1656469/Hans-Joachim-Schellnhuber-The-first-law-of-humanity-is-not-to-kill-your-children ).
[Editor note: Isaac Asimov’s First Law of Robotics is “Thou shalt not harm humans”].
John Schellnhuber ( founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, set up in 1992) (2015): “It was a scientific conference, preceding the infamous Copenhagen conference in 2009, and actually I talked about the carrying capacity of the Earth, which is an interesting issue. What I said is, if global warming is not in any way mitigated, and we go into a six or eight degrees warmer world, then our planet will probably only be able to support a billion people” (John Schellnhuber quoted in Rosanna Ryan, “Meet John Schellnhuber: climatologist to Pope Francis”, ABC RN, Late Night Live, 25 September 2015: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/meet-john-schellnhuber-climatologist-to-pope-francis/6799686 ).
Dr Gavin Schmidt (current director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) when asked by Dr Andrew Simms “Is it still likely that we will stay below even 2C?” (2017): “The inertia in the system (oceans, economies, technologies, people) is substantial and … so far the efforts are not commensurate with the goal” (Andrew Simms, “”A cat in hell’s chance” – why we’re losing the battle to keep global warming below 2C”, Guardian, 19 January 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/cat-in-hells-chance-why-losing-battle-keep-global-warming-2c-climate-change ).
Peter Seligman is a co-founder of the charity Conservation International, the mission statement of which is “Building upon a strong foundation of science, partnership and field demonstration, CI empowers societies to responsibly and sustainably care for nature, our global biodiversity, for the well-being of humanity” (see: http://www.conservation.org/newsroom/experts/Pages/seligmann.aspx ). .
"The problem is a lack of accountability. The goals are stated, but they're Utopian; no-one holds governments to account. The job of heads of governments, of presidents and prime ministers, is to see when there's a crisis coming and to respond to that, to say 'let's address it'; but all we hear is a big silence." [1].
[1]. Peter Seligman quoted in Richard Black, “Where are the green goals?”,, BBC News, 15 September 2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4250854.stm .
SEMILETOV. Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov et al (Russian scientists) (2015), “The East Siberian Arctic Shelf: towards further assessment of permafrost-related methane fluxes and role of sea ice” Sustained release of methane (CH4) to the atmosphere from thawing Arctic permafrost may be a positive and significant feedback to climate warming. Atmospheric venting of CH4 from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) was recently reported to be on par with flux from the Arctic tundra; however, the future scale of these releases remains unclear. Here, based on results of our latest observations, we show that CH4 emissions from this shelf are likely to be determined by the state of subsea permafrost degradation. We observed CH4 emissions from two previously understudied areas of the ESAS: the outer shelf, where subsea permafrost is predicted to be discontinuous or mostly degraded due to long submergence by seawater, and the near shore area, where deep/open taliks presumably form due to combined heating effects of seawater, river run-off, geothermal flux and pre-existing thermokarst. CH4 emissions from these areas emerge from largely thawed sediments via strong flare-like ebullition, producing fluxes that are orders of magnitude greater than fluxes observed in background areas underlain by largely frozen sediments. We suggest that progression of subsea permafrost thawing and decrease in ice extent could result in a significant increase in CH4 emissions from the ESAS…Sea ice serves as a natural physical barrier that restricts CH4 emissions from the ESAS during the ice-covered period. Because the temperature in the Arctic has increased at twice the rate as in the rest of the globe, and the region is expected to increase an additional 8°C (14°F) in the twenty-first century [3], longer periods of open water and shorter ice-covered periods [35,36] are occurring. Increasing periods of open water implies an increasing number of storm events, when wind speed increases to 15 m s−1 or more and the boundary between sea surface and air increases many times due to deep water mixing. Such events have the potential to rapidly ventilate bubble-transported and dissolved CH4 from the water column, producing high emission rates to the atmosphere. Because more than 75% of the total ESAS area is less than 50 m in depth, the water column provides bubbles with a very short conduit to the atmosphere. Storms enable more CH4 release because they destroy shallow water stratification and increase the boundary between sea surface and air, thus increasing gas exchange across phase boundaries. As a result, bubble-mediated, storm-induced CH4 ‘pulses’ force a greater fraction of CH4 to bypass aqueous microbial filters and reach the atmosphere [10]. In addition, about 10% of the ESAS remains open water in winter due to formation of flaw polynyas. It was shown that flaw polynyas provide pathways for CH4 escape to the atmosphere during the arctic winter [37]. Areas of flaw polynyas in the ESAS increased dramatically (by up to five times) during the last decades, and now exceed the total area of the Siberian wetlands (electronic supplementary material, figure S5). This implies that the ESAS remains an active source of CH4 to the atmosphere year-round. Increasing storminess [38–40] and rapid sea-ice retreat [36] causing increased CH4 fluxes from the ESAS are possible new climate-change-driven processes. Continuing warming of the AO will strengthen these processes, and the role of the ESAS as a year-round contributor to global CH4 emissions will grow over time” (see NataliaShakhova, Igor Semiletov et al, ““The East Siberian Arctic Shelf: towards further assessment of permafrost-related methane fluxes and role of sea ice”, Royal Society Philosophical Transactions A, 7 September 2015: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/20140451 ).
SHAKHOVA. Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov et al (Russian scientists) (2015), “The East Siberian Arctic Shelf: towards further assessment of permafrost-related methane fluxes and role of sea ice” Sustained release of methane (CH4) to the atmosphere from thawing Arctic permafrost may be a positive and significant feedback to climate warming. Atmospheric venting of CH4 from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) was recently reported to be on par with flux from the Arctic tundra; however, the future scale of these releases remains unclear. Here, based on results of our latest observations, we show that CH4 emissions from this shelf are likely to be determined by the state of subsea permafrost degradation. We observed CH4 emissions from two previously understudied areas of the ESAS: the outer shelf, where subsea permafrost is predicted to be discontinuous or mostly degraded due to long submergence by seawater, and the near shore area, where deep/open taliks presumably form due to combined heating effects of seawater, river run-off, geothermal flux and pre-existing thermokarst. CH4 emissions from these areas emerge from largely thawed sediments via strong flare-like ebullition, producing fluxes that are orders of magnitude greater than fluxes observed in background areas underlain by largely frozen sediments. We suggest that progression of subsea permafrost thawing and decrease in ice extent could result in a significant increase in CH4 emissions from the ESAS…Sea ice serves as a natural physical barrier that restricts CH4 emissions from the ESAS during the ice-covered period. Because the temperature in the Arctic has increased at twice the rate as in the rest of the globe, and the region is expected to increase an additional 8°C (14°F) in the twenty-first century [3], longer periods of open water and shorter ice-covered periods [35,36] are occurring. Increasing periods of open water implies an increasing number of storm events, when wind speed increases to 15 m s−1 or more and the boundary between sea surface and air increases many times due to deep water mixing. Such events have the potential to rapidly ventilate bubble-transported and dissolved CH4 from the water column, producing high emission rates to the atmosphere. Because more than 75% of the total ESAS area is less than 50 m in depth, the water column provides bubbles with a very short conduit to the atmosphere. Storms enable more CH4 release because they destroy shallow water stratification and increase the boundary between sea surface and air, thus increasing gas exchange across phase boundaries. As a result, bubble-mediated, storm-induced CH4 ‘pulses’ force a greater fraction of CH4 to bypass aqueous microbial filters and reach the atmosphere [10]. In addition, about 10% of the ESAS remains open water in winter due to formation of flaw polynyas. It was shown that flaw polynyas provide pathways for CH4 escape to the atmosphere during the arctic winter [37]. Areas of flaw polynyas in the ESAS increased dramatically (by up to five times) during the last decades, and now exceed the total area of the Siberian wetlands (electronic supplementary material, figure S5). This implies that the ESAS remains an active source of CH4 to the atmosphere year-round. Increasing storminess [38–40] and rapid sea-ice retreat [36] causing increased CH4 fluxes from the ESAS are possible new climate-change-driven processes. Continuing warming of the AO will strengthen these processes, and the role of the ESAS as a year-round contributor to global CH4 emissions will grow over time” (see NataliaShakhova, Igor Semiletov et al, ““The East Siberian Arctic Shelf: towards further assessment of permafrost-related methane fluxes and role of sea ice”, Royal Society Philosophical Transactions A, 7 September 2015: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/20140451 ).
Professor David Shearman is an Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia (see: http://theconversation.com/dealing-with-the-health-risks-of-unconventional-gas-10987 ) .
Professor David Shearman (Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of Adelaide) in commenting on heath concerns relating to unconventional gas that is likely to be a major source of gas for gas-fired power stations in Queensland: “Many health concerns could be allayed by tight regulation of mining technology, pre-emptive water analysis, monitoring for both water contamination and health impacts. Indeed it would be in the interests of industry to welcome such measures and promote them instead of spending large sums reassuring the public. Finally what about regulation of the biggest potential health impact? The International Energy Agency has expressed concern about gas replacing renewable energy sources. This would delay any chance of early curtailment of greenhouse emissions. Climate change is accepted as a huge threat to health world wide. In 2012, unconventional gas mining is expanding rapidly. Billions of dollars are being invested without adequate research, regulation and public health surveillance. We are trusting that the lucky country will get away with it. And as with coal the externality costs [will] be foisted onto to the public purse". [1].
[1]. David Shearman, “Dealing with the health risks of unconventional gas”, The Conversation, 28 November 2012: http://theconversation.com/dealing-with-the-health-risks-of-unconventional-gas-10987.
Professor Steven Sherwood, lead author of a key climate change report from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) centre of excellence for climate system science: “Climate sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more. Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation. When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5C to 5C. .This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3C to 5C with a doubling of carbon dioxide. Rises in global average temperatures of this magnitude will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don’t urgently start to curb our emissions.” [1].
Steven C. Sherwood, Sandrine Bony and Jean-Louis Dufresne (2014): “Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.” [2].
[1]. Professor Steven Sherwood quoted in Oliver Milman, “Climate change models underestimate likely temperature rise, report shows”, Guardian, 1 January 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/01/climate-change-models-underestimate-likely-temperature-rise-report-shows .
[2]. Steven C. Sherwood, Sandrine Bony and Jean-Louis Dufresne, “Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing”, Nature, 505, 37-42, 1 January 2014: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html .
Steven Sherwood et al (2020): “We assess evidence relevant to Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO2, characterized by an effective sensitivity S . This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record. An S value lower than 2 K is difficult to reconcile with any of the three lines of evidence. The amount of cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence against values of S greater than 4.5 K. Other lines of evidence in combination also show that this is relatively unlikely. We use a Bayesian approach to produce a probability density (PDF) for S given all the evidence, including tests of robustness to difficult‐to‐quantify uncertainties and different priors. The 66% range is 2.6‐3.9 K for our Baseline calculation, and remains within 2.3‐4.5 K under the robustness tests; corresponding 5‐95% ranges are 2.3‐4.7 K, bounded by 2.0‐5.7 K (although such high‐confidence ranges should be regarded more cautiously). This indicates a stronger constraint on S than reported in past assessments, by lifting the low end of the range. This narrowing occurs because the three lines of evidence agree and are judged to be largely independent, and because of greater confidence in understanding feedback processes and in combining evidence. We identify promising avenues for further narrowing the range in S , in particular using comprehensive models and process understanding to address limitations in the traditional forcing‐feedback paradigm for interpreting past changes… In particular, it now appears extremely unlikely that the climate sensitivity could be low enough to avoid substantial climate change (well in excess of 2°C warming) under a high‐emissions future scenario. We remain unable to rule out that the sensitivity could be above 4.5°C per doubling of carbon dioxide levels, although this is not likely” (S. Sherwood et al, “An assessment of the Earth’s climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence”, Reviews of Geophysics, 22 July 2020: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019RG000678 ).
[Editor note: atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm pre-Industrial Revolution and reached 400 ppm in 2013. Dr James Hansen et al (2013) say that warming, presently +0.8C, should be limited to 1C and that 2C would be disastrous ; see James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Frank Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Shi-Ling Hsu, Camille Parmesan, Johan Rockstrom, Eelco J. Rohling, Jeffrey Sachs, Pete Smith, Konrad Steffen, Lise Van Susteren, Karina von Schuckmann, James C. Zachos, “Assessing “dangerous climate change”: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and Nature”, PLOS One, 8 (12), 3 December 2013: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648 . ]
SHIVA. Dr Vandana Shiva (Indian physicist, environmental and anti-globalization author and activists, and author of more than 20 books) (2015): “Humanity stands at a precipice. Merely 200 years of the age of fossil fuel has driven species and biodiversity to extinction, destroyed our soils, depleted and polluted our water and destabilised our entire climate system. Five hundred years of colonialism have driven cultures, languages, peoples to extinction and left a legacy of violence as the basis of production and governance… Ecologically non-sustainable models of agriculture, dependent on fossil fuels, have been imposed through “aid” and “development” projects in the name of Green Revolution. As soil and water are destroyed, ecosystems that produced food and supported livelihoods can no longer sustain societies [e.g. Lake Chad, Syria]. As a result, there’s anger, discontent, frustration, protests and conflicts. However, land, water and agriculture-related conflicts are repeatedly and deliberately mutated into religious conflicts to protect the militarised agriculture model, which has unleashed a global war against the earth and people… Since 2009, we heard of Boko Haram while we missed the news about the disappearance of Lake Chad. Lake Chad supported 30 million people in four countries — Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Niger. Intensive irrigation for industrial agriculture increased four-fold from 1983 to 1994. Fifty per cent of the disappearance of Lake Chad is attributed to the building of dams and intensive irrigation for industrial agriculture. As the water disappeared, conflicts between Muslim pastoralists and settled Christian farmers over the dwindling water resources led to unrest. As Luc Gnacadja, the former secretary-general of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, states about the violence in Nigeria, “The so-called religious fight is actually about access to vital resources”. The story of Syria is similar. In 2009, a severe drought uprooted a million farmers who were forced to move into the city for livelihood. Structural adjustment measures, imposed by global financial institutions and trade rules, prevented the government from responding to the plight of Syria’s farmers. The farmers’ protests intensified. By 2011, the world’s military powers were in Syria, selling more arms and diverting the narrative from the story of the soil and farmers to religion. Today, half of Syria is in refugee camps, the war is escalating and the root causes of the violence continue to be actively disguised as religion… For me, COP21 is a pilgrimage of peace — to remember all the innocent victims of the wars against the land and people; to develop the capacity to reimagine that we are one and refuse to be divided by race and religion; to see the connections between ecological destruction, growing violence and wars that are engulfing our societies. We must remember that there will be no peace between people if we do not make peace with the Earth” (see Vandana Shiva, “Paris, Peace, And Humanity On The Precipice”, 6 December, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/shiva061215.htm ).
Dr Andrew Simms (co-director of the New Weather Institute, author of “Cancel the Apocalypse” and a research fellow on rapid transition at the University of Sussex) (2017): “Is it still likely that we will stay below even 2C? In the 100 months since August 2008, I have been writing a climate-change diary for the Guardian to raise questions and monitor progress, or the lack of it, on climate action. To see how well we have fared, I asked a number of leading climate scientists and analysts for their views. The responses were as bracing as a bath in a pool of glacial meltwater…Sabine Fuss, of Germany’s Mercator Research Institute, on Global Commons and Climate Change says emissions are currently “not aligned” with the 2C target and will need to “come down more quickly”. Joanna Haigh, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and Environment, thinks there is “no chance whatsoever at current levels of carbon emissions”, and her Grantham Institute colleague, Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, is not “confident” that temperature rises can be held below 2C. Prof Andrew Watkinson of the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia thinks it “unlikely” and Prof John Shepherd, a physicist at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, calls it “not very likely at all”. Stuart Haszeldine of the School of GeoSciences at the University of Edinburgh says we have “very little chance”, and Prof Piers Forster, director of the Priestly International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds calls it, “on the fanciful edge of plausible”. Glen Peters, senior researcher at Norway’s leading climate change centre, Cicero, is unambiguous, saying: “We have emitted too much already.” And these sentiments are echoed by Prof Alice Larkin, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University, and Dr Chris Vernon, a glaciologist and former scientist at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Science ... In short, not a single one of the scientists polled thought the 2C target likely to be met. Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London, is most emphatic. “My personal view,” he says, “is that there is not a cat in hell’s chance” (Andrew Simms, “”A cat in hell’s chance” – why we’re losing the battle to keep global warming below 2C”, Guardian, 19 January 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/cat-in-hells-chance-why-losing-battle-keep-global-warming-2c-climate-change ).
According to Wikipedia: “Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook. In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments commonly put forth by those involved in the global warming controversy who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change” (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science ). Skeptical Science has a convenient summation of the debunking of about 10 major incorrect climate skeptic assertions about man-made climate change (see: https://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html ). .
John Cook, Australian creator of Skeptical Science, has analyzed the remorselessly increasing total heat content of the Earth, whether (a) ocean content or (2) land, air and ice melting heat content [see graphs]: “Last weekend, I gave a talk at the Climate Action Summit on the latest climate science. During the talk, I showed the following graph of the Earth's total heat content, demonstrating that even over the last decade when surface temperature warming has slowed somewhat, the planet continues to build up heat at a rate of 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations worth of heat every second. This data comes from a paper lead authored by Australian climate scientist John Church that tallies up the heat accumulating in the oceans, warming the land and atmosphere and melting the ice:.. As this figure shows, there has been no significant slowing in global heat accumulation, contrary to the mythical 'global warming pause'. So, how do we come up with 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonation equivalents per second from this data? The slope of the global heat accumulation graph tells us how rapidly the Earth's climate is building up heat. Over the past decade, the rate is 8 x 1021 Joules per year, or 2.5 x 1014 Joules per second. The yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3 x 1013 Joules, hence the rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That's nearly 2 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, when we're told global warming supposedly 'paused'. That has to be the worst pause ever. The data used in Nuccitelli et al. (2012) are now available for download so you can check it out for yourself.” [1].
[1]. John Cook, “[Global warming] 4 Hiroshima bomb’s worth of heat per second ”. Skeptical Science, 1 July 2013: https://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html .
Carolyn Snyder (Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA) (2016): “Reconstructions of Earth’s past climate strongly influence our understanding of the dynamics and sensitivity of the climate system. Yet global temperature has been reconstructed for only a few isolated windows of time1, 2, and continuous reconstructions across glacial cycles remain elusive. Here I present a spatially weighted proxy reconstruction of global temperature over the past 2 million years estimated from a multi-proxy database of over 20,000 sea surface temperature point reconstructions. Global temperature gradually cooled until roughly 1.2 million years ago and cooling then stalled until the present. The cooling trend probably stalled before the beginning of the mid-Pleistocene transition3, and pre-dated the increase in the maximum size of ice sheets around 0.9 million years ago4, 5, 6. Thus, global cooling may have been a pre-condition for, but probably is not the sole causal mechanism of, the shift to quasi-100,000-year glacial cycles at the mid-Pleistocene transition. Over the past 800,000 years, polar amplification (the amplification of temperature change at the poles relative to global temperature change) has been stable over time, and global temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have been closely coupled across glacial cycles. A comparison of the new temperature reconstruction with radiative forcing from greenhouse gases estimates an Earth system sensitivity of 9 degrees Celsius (range 7 to 13 degrees Celsius, 95 per cent credible interval) change in global average surface temperature per doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide over millennium timescales. This result suggests that stabilization at today’s greenhouse gas levels may already commit Earth to an eventual total warming of 5 degrees Celsius (range 3 to 7 degrees Celsius, 95 per cent credible interval) over the next few millennia as ice sheets, vegetation and atmospheric dust continue to respond to global warming” (Carolyn Snyder, “Evolution of global temperature over the last two million years”, Nature, 26 September 2016: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature19798.html ).
Jeff Tolleson (science journalist) on Carolyn Snyder (2016) estimate that “stabilization at today’s greenhouse gas levels may already commit Earth to an eventual total warming of 5 degrees Celsius” (2016): “Using a subset of the reconstructed temperature data, Snyder, who began the study while at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, analysed the relationship between past temperatures and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels estimated from Antarctic ice cores covering the past 800,000 years. Based on that analysis, she found that future long-term warming induced by greenhouse gases could be more severe than many previous estimates. Even if the amount of atmospheric CO2 were to stabilize at current levels, the study suggests that average temperatures may increase by roughly 5 °C over the next few millennia as a result of the effects of the greenhouse gas on glaciers, ecosystems and other factors. A doubling of the pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 of roughly 280 parts per million, which could occur within decades unless people curb greenhouse-gas emissions, could eventually boost global average temperatures by around 9 °C. This is on the high end of existing estimates. Proceed with caution. And this is where the study has encountered scepticism” (Jeff Tolleson, “Longest historic temperature record stretches back 2 million years. Suggests greenhouse gases may warm plant more than previously thought”, Nature, 26 September 2016: http://www.nature.com/news/longest-historic-temperature-record-stretches-back-2-million-years-1.20673 ).
Jewish Hungarian American investor and philanthropist George Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management and Chairman of the Open Society Foundations. A leading player in the hedge-fund industry, he is the author of many books, including “The Alchemy of Finance”, “The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it Means” and “The Bubble of American Supremacy” (see: http://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/george-soros ).
George Soros on “the absence of global governance” (2013) “As 2013 comes to a close, efforts to revive growth in the world’s most influential economies – with the exception of the eurozone – are having a beneficial effect worldwide. All of the looming problems for the global economy are political in character... A successful transition in China will most likely entail political as well as economic reforms, while failure would undermine still-widespread trust in the country’s political leadership, resulting in repression at home and military confrontation abroad. The other great unresolved problem is the absence of proper global governance. The lack of agreement among the United Nations Security Council’s five permanent members is exacerbating humanitarian catastrophes in countries like Syria – not to mention allowing global warming to proceed largely unhindered. But, in contrast to the Chinese conundrum [growth associated with increasing debt], which will come to a head in the next few years, the absence of global governance may continue indefinitely.” [1].
[1]. George Soros, “The World economy’s shifting challenges”, Project Syndicate, 2013: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/george-soros-maps-the-terrain-of-a-global-economy-that-is-increasingly-shaped-by-china .
David Spratt on the website called “Climate Code Red” (the title of a key book by David Spratt and Phillip Sutton) (2009): “The central point is that Arctic sea-ice is undergoing dramatic loss in summer, having lost 70-80% of its volume in the last 50 years, most since 2000. Without summer sea-ice, Greenland cannot escape a trajectory of ice-sheet loss leading to an eventual sea-level rise of 7 metres. Regional temperatures in the Arctic autumn are already up about 5C, and by mid-century an Arctic ice-free in summer, combined with more global warming, will be pushing Siberia close to the point where large-scale loss of carbon from melting permafrost would make further mitigation efforts futile. As Hansen told the US Congress in testimony last year, the “elements of a perfect storm, a global cataclysm, are assembled”. In short, if you don’t have a target that aims to cool the planet sufficiently to get the sea-ice back, the climate system may spiral out of control, past many “tipping points” to the final “point of no return”. And that target is not 350ppm, it’s around 300 ppm. Hansen says Arctic sea-ice passed its tipping point decades ago, and in his presentations has also specifically identified 300-325ppm as the target range for sea-ice". [1].
[Editor's note: atmospheric CO2 concentration has now reached over 400 ppm CO2 and CO2-equivalent is now 478 ppm CO2-e (2013)].
[1]. David Spratt, “350 is the wrong target: put the science first”, Climate Code Red website, 22 January 2009: http://www.climatecodered.org/2009_01_01_archive.html .
David Spratt (leading Australian climate change activist (2017) and Ian Dunlop (leading Australian business man and climate change activist) (2017): “The first responsibility of a government is to safeguard the people and their future well-being. The ability to do this is threatened by climate change, whose accelerating impacts will also drive political instability and conflict, posing large negative consequences to human society which may never be undone. This report looks at climate change and conflict issues through the lens of sensible risk management to draw new conclusions about the challenge we now face.
• From tropical coral reefs to the polar ice sheets, global warming is already dangerous. The world is perilously close to, or passed, tipping points which will create major changes in global climate systems.
• The world now faces existential climate-change risks which may result in “outright chaos” and an end to human civilisation as we know it.
• These risks are either not understood or wilfully ignored across the public and private sectors, with very few exceptions.
•Global warming will drive increasingly severe humanitarian crises, forced migration, political instability and conflict. The Asia Pacific region, including Australia, is considered to be “Disaster Alley” where some of the worst impacts will be experienced.
• Building more resilient communities in the most vulnerable nations by high level financial commitments and development assistance can help protect peoples in climate hotspots and zones of potential instability and conflict.
• Australia’s political, bureaucratic and corporate leaders are abrogating their fiduciary responsibilities to safeguard the people and their future well-being. They are ill-prepared for the real risks
of climate change at home and in the region.
•The Australian government must ensure Australian Defence Force and emergency services preparedness, mission and operational resilience, and capacity for humanitarian aid and disaster relief, across the full range of projected climate change scenarios.
• It is essential to now strongly advocate a global climate emergency response, and to build a national leadership group outside conventional politics to design and implement emergency decarbonisation of the Australian economy. This would adopt all available safe solutions using sound, existential risk-management practices” (Ian Dunlop and David Spratt, “Disaster Alley climate change conflict & risk”, Breakthrough, 2017: https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2017/06/20/ACFrOgDkCYAvFeJ9d4YxhOlZiOHNkTOnWbkhlY_dX8kl_O3ChbGcEmWsbUNrOnJUwE4SNWFvzB7RM6w4GsF0pDwdnREIip-k5J-03TQc0Op4FWrsNcZpjXAuy7NNJ_Y=.pdf ).
David Spratt (a leading climate change activist)(2018): “The present 1°C of climate warming is already dangerous because critical tipping points have already been crossed. In 2014 glaciologist Eric Rignot said ice retreat in parts of West Antarctica was already “unstoppable”, with the “likely collapse of the rest of the ice sheet, and a 3-5 metre sea level rise”. That is, unstoppable unless temperatures decline below 1°C to the 1970s level [circa 330 ppm CO2]. In Paris in 2015, the rhetoric was of 1.5°C and 2°C, even as the voluntary, unenforceable agreements put warming on a path to 3°C, and perhaps 4°C. But 1.5°C is far from safe. A safe climate would be well less than the current warming, unless you think it is OK to destroy the Arctic ecosystem, tip West West Antarctic glaciers into a self-accelerating melt, and lose the world’s coral reefs, just for starters. Our dilemma is that burning fossil fuels also release a lot of nitrate and sulphate aerosols — the starters for acid rain — which have a very short-term cooling effect, keeping the planet two-thirds of a degree cooler than it would otherwise be….
Carbon drawdown as large as feasible is absolutely necessary, but until you hit zero emissions, it acts to slow the rate of future warming, not to cool the planet. Carbon drawdown cannot be completed fast enough to prevent or reverse the significant tipping points currently crossed and others that are close at hand. Carbon drawdown of around 200 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide would reduce warming by ~0.1°C. At present estimated costs, that’s $10-15 trillion per tenth of a degree of cooling. The most cost-effective large scale drawdown action is the restoration of carbon-dense and biologically rich natural forests. We can reduce the warming impacts of the short-lived gases impacts, of which methane is the largest component. Half the methane emissions are from human actions: fossil fuels, livestock, and landfills/waste. But it is expected non-anthropogenic methane emissions from wetlands and the Arctic will increase, and there is evidence that tropical forest carbon stores and now turning into carbon sources. Thus, without solar radiation management — replacing anthropogenic aerosols from fossil fuel use with anthropogenic aerosols distributed by planes — it will be difficult to avoid hitting 2°C no matter what emissions path we take, and impossible not to overshoot 1.5°C significantly” (David Spratt, “Do we have the capability to reverse global warming within a meaningful time frame?”, Climate Code Red, 12 February 2018: http://www.climatecodered.org/2018/02/do-we-have-capability-to-reverse-global.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29 ).
David Spratt (leading Australian advocate of climate emergency action) on expert global reactions to the 2018 IPCC Report “Global warming of 1.5 °C”(2018): “Quite suddenly, in the wake of the recent IPCC report, it’s become commonplace to talk about a global climate emergency… In many ways, the recent IPCC report on 1.5°C was too conservative, overestimating the length time till we hit 1.5°C, and failing to account for crucial feedbacks in the climate system. Yet the report’s evidence was that 2°C of warming would be catastrophic in so many ways, including for sea-level rise, for coral systems, and for food and water security of hundreds of millions of people, if not more. The current Paris commitments are a path to 3.4°C of warming, and closer to 5°C when the full range of feedbacks are included… We have reached crunch time. “There is no documented historical precedent” for the speed and scale of transformative action needed to keep warming to 1.5°C, said the new IPCC report” (David Spratt, “World wakes up to scale of climate challenge, so what should a Labor government do?”, Renew Economy, 24 October 2018: https://reneweconomy.com.au/world-wakes-up-to-scale-of-climate-challenge-so-what-should-a-labor-government-do-19670/ ).
David Spratt and Ian Dunlop (leading Australian climate activists) on climate risk (2019): “ Climate change now represents a near-to mid-term existential threat to human civilisation. But this is not inevitable. A new approach to climate-related security risk-management is thus required, giving particular attention to the high-end and difficult-to-quantify “fat-tail” possibilities, in order to avoid such an outcome… To reduce or avoid such risks and to sustain human civilisation, it is essential to build a zero-emissions industrial system very quickly. This requires the global mobilisation of resources on an emergency basis, akin to a wartime level of response… Because policy makers and the media are often drawn to headline numbers, this approach results in less attention being given to the most devastating, difficult-to-quantify outcomes. In one example, the IPCC’sFifth Assessment Report in 2014 projected a sea-level rise of 0.55- 0.82 metre by 2100, but said “levels above the likely range cannot be reliably evaluated”. By way of comparison, the higher of two US Department of Defence scenarios is a two-metre rise by 2100,and the “extreme” scenario developed by a number of US government agencies is 2.5 metres by 2100. Another example [of scientific reticence] is the recent IPCC 1.5°C report, which projected that warming would continue at the current rate of ~0.2°C per decade and reach the 1.5°C mark around 2040. However the 1.5°C boundary is likely to be passed in half that time, around 2030, and the [catastrophic] 2°C boundary around 2045, due to accelerating anthropogenic emissions, decreased aerosol loading and changing ocean circulation conditions” (David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, “Existential climate-related security risk: a scenario approach”, Breakthrough – National Centre for Climate Restoration, May 2019: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_90dc2a2637f348edae45943a88da04d4.pdf ).
David Spratt (leading Australian climate change activist) (2019): “In a way it’s an obscene question: if the planet warms by 4 degrees Celsius (°C), would only a billion
people survive and many billions perish? Obscene in the sense of the obscenity of arguing about the exact body count from a genocide. In the end it’s about the immorality, the crime, the responsibility, not the precise numbers. But it’s a relevant question, in that Earth is heading towards 4°C of warming, based on emission reduction commitments so far. The Paris commitments are a path of warming of around 3.3°C, but that does not include some carbon cycle feedbacks that have already become active (e.g. permafrost, Amazon, other declines in carbon store efficiency) which would push that warming towards 5°C. So saying we are presently on a 4°C path is about right… So did Roger Hallam “go too far” [1 billion people left, 6 billion killed by 2090]? Not at all, there is serious research and eminent voices in support of his statements. The gross error in all of this are all those who cannot countenance this conversation.” (David Spratt, “At 4oC of warming, would a billion people survive? What scientists say” , Climate Code Red, 18 August 2019: http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/08/at-4c-of-warming-would-billion-people.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29 ).
Phillip Sutton (co-author with David Spratt of “Climate Code Red” and Manager and Strategist of Research and Strategist for Transition Initiation (RSTI) (2015): “Scientific knowledge is already sufficient to support the following conclusions:
• even the current warming of 0.85ºC is enough to cause highly undesirable and costly extreme weather events across the globe and to trigger very serious earth system changes. So it is clear that the current temperature is already too high;
• global warming of +2ºC will be far too hot and so will +1.5ºC warming according to the 2015 review under the UN climate convention1;
• the current greenhouse gas level is enough to produce warming of these magnitudes – once clean energy eliminates the particulate air pollution from coal burning that is currently cooling the planet by just over 1ºC2;
• the amount of greenhouse gas pollution in the air is already dangerous (in 2015);
• there is no budget of burnable carbon left 3”, (page 2, Phillip Sutton, “Striking Targets. Matching climate goals with climate reality”, Breakthrough (National Centre for Climate Restoration), Melbourne, 2015: http://media.wix.com/ugd/148cb0_2cec8c5928864748809e26a2b028d08c.pdf ).
Professor Frank Stacey ( former Professor of Physics at the University of Queensland and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science) (2015): “Essential information about the close relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide for the last several hundred thousand years has been provided by ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland. The carbon dioxide concentration oscillated between two approximate limits, 200 parts per million during ice age peaks and 280 parts per million during warm interglacial periods. This is what would be expected from the variation with temperature of the solubility of carbon dioxide in sea water. Cold ice age oceans dissolved more of the gas, extracting it from the atmosphere, but returned it to the atmosphere when they warmed up. The atmosphere and oceans exchanged carbon dioxide but, as nearly as can be determined, until recent times, the total has been constant for the last million years. Volcanic sources have been balanced by sequestering processes, mainly the formation of carbonate rocks. But the present rate at which carbon dioxide is produced by fossil fuel burning and cement production is more than 100 times the rate of release by volcanos. There is no way that natural processes can accommodate that increase. The excess will remain in the atmosphere-ocean system indefinitely and the consequences will last just as long. Moreover, with a warmer Earth, the oceans will hold a reduced share, enhancing the atmospheric content and consequent greenhouse warming. The anthropogenic greenhouse effect is essentially permanent, adding a temperature increment to whatever changes occur naturally. The next ice age that might have been anticipated has already been prevented and possibly also the following one. The hope that the temperature rise can be restricted to 2 degrees appears forlorn” [1].
[1]. Frank Stacey., “We live in a greenhouse with no vents”, ABC Radio National. Ockham’s Razor, 8 March 2015: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/we-live-in-a-greenhouse-with-no-vents/6277528 .
Professor Will Steffen is a climate scientist at ANU, Canberra, and a member of the Australian Climate Council, a privately-run group of climate scientists and economists who previously formed the government-funded Climate Commission that was sacked by the functionally climate change denialist, climate criminal, new Coalition Government in 2013 (see: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/australian-heatwaves-hotter-longer-climate-council ).
Professor Will Steffen on the Australian Climate Council interim report on heat waves (defined as at least three consecutive days at a temperature in the top 10% for that time of year; SE Australia in January 2014 suffered one of its worst ever heatwaves with temperatures over 40C for days and peaking at 46C) (2014): “Heatwaves have significant impacts on our health, our infrastructure, our agriculture and our ecosystems. It is essential that we understand the influence of climate change on heatwaves to ensure that health services, transport providers, farmers and the community are prepared for what is happening now and what will happen increasingly in the future. Australia has always had hot weather. However, climate change is loading the dice toward more extreme hot weather.” [1].
[1]. Oliver Milman, “Australian heatwaves getting hotter and longer, says Climate Council”, Guardian, 16 January 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/australian-heatwaves-hotter-longer-climate-council .
Professor Will Steffen (a leading Australian climate scientist ) re the climate challenge : “It’s not a technological or a scientific problem, it’s a question of humanity’s socio-political values...We need a social tipping point that flips our thinking before we reach a tipping point in the climate system” (Will Steffen quoted in the Foreward to David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, “Existential climate-related security risk: a scenario approach”, Breakthrough – National Centre for Climate Restoration, May 2019: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_90dc2a2637f348edae45943a88da04d4.pdf ).
Petteri Taalas (World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Secretary-General) (2018): “We are not on track to meet climate change targets and rein in temperature increases. Greenhouse gas concentrations are once again at record levels and if the current trend continues we may see temperature increases 3-5°C by the end of the century. If we exploit all known fossil fuel resources, the temperature rise will be considerably higher. It is worth repeating once again that we are the first generation to fully understand climate change and the last generation to be able to do something about it” (Petteri Taalas quoted in “WMO climate statement: past 4 years warmest on record”, WMO Press Release, 29 November 2018: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-climate-statement-past-4-years-warmest-record ).
Greta Thunberg (outstanding Swedish climate action activist as a spokesperson for the children’s School Striker movement) (2019): “Now we probably don’t even have a future any more. Because that future was sold so that a small number of people could make unimaginable amounts of money. It was stolen from us every time you said that the sky was the limit, and that you only live once…
But perhaps the most dangerous misconception about the climate crisis is that we have to “lower” our emissions. Because that is far from enough. Our emissions have to stop if we are to stay below 1.5-2C of warming. The “lowering of emissions” is of course necessary but it is only the beginning of a fast process that must lead to a stop within a couple of decades, or less. And by “stop” I mean net zero – and then quickly on to negative figures. That rules out most of today’s politics…
This ongoing irresponsible behaviour will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind. People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished. But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I’m sorry, but it’s still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at…
The climate crisis is both the easiest and the hardest issue we have ever faced. The easiest because we know what we must do. We must stop the emissions of greenhouse gases. The hardest because our current economics are still totally dependent on burning fossil fuels, and thereby destroying ecosystems in order to create everlasting economic growth” (Greta Thunberg, “You did not act in time”: Greta Thunberg’s full speech to MPs”, Guardian, 23 April 2019: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/23/greta-thunberg-full-speech-to-mps-you-did-not-act-in-time ).
Greta Thunberg (Climate activist, 16) addressing the UN Climate Action Summit in New York City on 23 September 2019 ( the full transcript of Thunberg's speech, beginning with her response to a question about the message she has for world leaders): "My message is that we'll be watching you. This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you! For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight. You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe. The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control. Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist. So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences. To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons. How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years. There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is. You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not. Thank you" (see “Transcript: Greta Thunberg’s speech at the UN Climate Action Summit”, NPR, 23 September 2019: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit .)
Dr Petra Tschakert ( Pennsylvania State University and a coordinating lead author of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report) on the 2°C target (which carries an increased risk of sea level rise, shifting rainfall patters and extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, and heat waves, particularly affecting the tropics, polar regions, and high altitudes, and the tropics): "The consensus… was that a 2°C danger level seemed utterly inadequate given the already observed impacts on ecosystems, food, livelihoods, and sustainable development… Using a figure for average global warming may indeed be the most convenient and compelling means to discuss the severity of climate change impacts, but not only does it inadequately capture the complexity of the climate system, it poorly reflects locally experienced temperature increases and the extreme and large variation across regions -- no single person or any species faces a global average… These implications emphasize what is truly at stake -- not a scientific bickering of what the most appropriate temperature target ought to be, but a commitment to protect the most vulnerable and at risk populations and ecosystems, as well as the willingness to pay for abatement and compensation. This should happen now, and not only when climate change hits the rich world… The crux of the matter is no longer about the scientific validity of one temperature target over another... It is first and foremost about overcoming deeply entrenched divisions on value judgments, responsibility, and finance... It is about acknowledging that negative impacts of climate change under a [present] 0.8°C temperature increase are already widespread, across the globe, and that danger, risk, and harm would be utterly unacceptable in a 2°C warmer world, largely for 'them' -- the mollusks, and coral reefs, and the poor and marginalized populations... even if this danger hasn't quite hit home yet for 'us'" (Dr Petra Tschakert quoted in “Two Degree Celsius Climate Change Target 'Utterly Inadequate”, Countercurrents, 28 March, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/cc280315A.htm ).
Jakob von Uexkull (former Member of the European Parliament and a leader of the German Green Party, founded both the Right Livelihood Award- sometimes called the Alternative Nobel Prize - and also the World Future Council) (2016): “We may all be doing our best but, as Winston Churchill said: “In a crisis, it is not enough to do our best – we have to do what is necessary”. Today we are heading for unprecedented dangers and conflicts, up to and including the end of a habitable planet in the foreseeable future, depriving all future generations of their right to life and the lives of preceding generations of meaning and purpose.
This apocalyptic reality is the elephant in the room. Current policies threaten temperature increases triggering permafrost melting and the release of ocean methane hydrates which would make our earth unliveable, according to research presented by the British Government Met office at the Paris Climate Conference.
Long before that point, our prosperity, security, culture and identity will disintegrate. A Europe unable to cope with a few million war refugees will collapse under the weight of tens or even hundreds of millions of climate refugees.
UN Environment, “Emissions Gap report 2018”, Executive Summary (2018): “With the results of the new global studies prepared for the IPCC report, the emissions gap — especially to stay below 1.5°C warming — has increased significantly in comparison with previous estimates, as new studies explore more variations and make more cautious assumptions about the possibility of global carbon dioxide-removal deployment. Pathways reflecting current NDCs [Nationally Determined Contributions] imply global warming of about 3°C by 2100, with warming continuing afterwards. If the emissions gap is not closed by 2030, it is very plausible that the goal of a well-below 2°C temperature increase is also out of reach. The assessment of country action for this Emissions Gap Report concludes that while most G20 countries are on track to meet their Cancun pledges for 2020, the majority are not yet on a path that will lead them to fulfilling their NDCs for 2030” (UN Environment, “Emissions Gap report 2018”, Executive Summary, 2018: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/26879/EGR2018_ESEN.pdf?sequence=10 )
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report 2013, Executive Summary: “The emissions gap in 2020 is the difference between emissions levels in 2020 consistent with meeting climate targets, and levels expected in that year if country pledges and commitments are met, As it becomes less and less likely that the emissions gap will be closed by 2020, the world will have to rely on more difficult, costlier and riskier means after 2020 of keeping global average temperature increase below 2oC. If the emissions gap is not closed, or significantly narrowed, by 2020, the door to many options limiting the temperature increase to 1.5oC at the end of the century will be closed… Current global greenhouse gas emission levels [50.1 Gt CO2-e in 2020] are considerably higher than the levels in 2020 that are in line with meeting the 1.5o C or 2o C targets, and are still increasing. In 2010, in absolute levels, developing countries accounted for about 60 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.” [1, 2].
[1]. United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report 2013, Executive Summary: http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport2013/portals/50188/Executive_summary_en.pdf .
[2]. United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report 2013: http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport2013/ .
Report by Oliver Milman, The Guardian Australia (2014): “The Deep Decarbonisation Pathways report, released by the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, analysed the 15 countries that account for 70% of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, which includes Australia, the US, Britain and China. According to the report, compiled by academics from each of the countries, the 15 countries could make deep cuts to emissions while also tripling economic output. These cuts are needed, the report notes, if the world is to avoid the “catastrophic” impact of failing to keep to the internationally agreed limit of 2C global warming on pre-industrial levels. The study concedes the world is on track to overshoot this.” [1, 2].
The Executive Summary of “Pathways to Deep Decarbonization” makes a key statement “The world is not on track to stay within the 2 degree C limit” [3].
[1]. Oliver Milman, “Zero carbon and economic growth can go together, UN study says”, The Guardian Australia,10 July 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/10/zero-carbon-and-economic-growth-can-go-together-un-study-says .
[2]. UN Pathways to Deep Decarbonization Report (2014): http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DDPP_interim_2014_report.pdf .
[3]. Executive Summary of “Pathways to Deep Decarbonization (2014)”: http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DDPP_interim_2014_executive_summary.pdf .
US EIA: "Because anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide result primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, energy consumption is at the center of the climate change debate. In the IEO2011 Reference case, world energy-related carbon dioxide emissions increase from 30.2 billion metric tons in 2008 to 35.2 billion metric tons in 2020 and 43.2 billion metric tons in 2035. Much of the growth in emissions is attributed to developing, non-OECD nations that continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels to meet fast-paced growth in energy demand. Non-OECD emissions total 28.9 billion metric tons in 2035, or about 73 percent above the 2008 level. In comparison, OECD emissions total 14.3 billion metric tons in 2035—only about 6 percent above the level in 2008 [see graph] " [1].
[1]. US EIA, “Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions”, Table A10: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm .
The US National Academy of Sciences is one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world. Members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine. New members of the organization are elected annually by current members, based on their distinguished and continuing achievements in original scientific research (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences ).
2010 Open Letter by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including11 Nobel Laureates: “Delay is not an option”.
2010 Open Letter by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, “Open Letter: climate change and the integrity of science”, Guardian, 6 May 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/06/climate-science-open-letter .
The US National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) provides data showing that the 0-700 meter global ocean heat content has steadily increased in a quasi-linear fashion since 1966 by about 20 x 1022 joules and that the 0-2000 meter global ocean heat content has steadily increased in a quasi-linear fashion since 1966 by 28 a x1022 joules [1].
[1]. US National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC), “Global ocean heat and salt content”: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ .
The US National Research Council in its own words: “Our mission is to improve government decision making and public policy, increase public understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in matters involving science, engineering, technology, and health. The Research Council's independent, expert reports and other scientific activities inform policies and actions that have the power to improve the lives of people in the U.S. and around the world”. The National Academies Press (NAP) was created by the National Academies to publish the reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, all operating under a charter granted by the Congress of the United States. (see: http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/index.html and http://www.nap.edu/content/help/about.html ).
National Research Council (2012): “In principle the thermal impulse could be mitigated to a degree that would presumably preserve the current operating conditions of human societies, but the global effort required to do that is not being undertaken and cannot be presumed. As a practical matter, that means that significant burdens of adaptation will be imposed on all societies and that unusually severe climate perturbations will be encountered in some parts of the world over the next decade with an increasing frequency and severity thereafter. There is compelling reason to presume that specific failures of adaptation will occur with consequences more severe than any yet experienced, severe enough to compel more extensive international engagement than has yet been anticipated or organized.” [1, 2]
[1]. John D. Steinbruner, Paul C. Stern, and Jo L. Husbands, Editors ( Committee on Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Social and Political Stresses; Board on Environmental Change and Society; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council): “Climate and social stress: Implications for Security Analysis”, The National Academies Press, 2012: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=14682 .
[2]. Tom Zeller, “Amid climate change inaction in Washington, activist urges Americans to “do the Math””, Huffinfgton Post, 16 November 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/climate-change-math-politicians_b_2147001.html .
Maria Josephina Arnoldina van der Hoeven (born 13 September 1949) is a Dutch politician of the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) party and has been the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency since 1 September 2011 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_van_der_Hoeven ).
IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven commenting on the IEA 2011 World Energy Outlook (WEO) report (2011): "Growth, prosperity and rising population will inevitably push up energy needs over the coming decades. But we cannot continue to rely on insecure and environmentally unsustainable uses of energy. Governments need to introduce stronger measures to drive investment in efficient and low-carbon technologies. The Fukushima nuclear accident, the turmoil in parts of the Middle East and North Africa and a sharp rebound in energy demand in 2010 which pushed CO2 emissions to a record high, highlight the urgency and the scale of the challenge." [1].
[1]. Maria van der Hoeven quoted in IEA, “The world is locking itself into an unsustainable energy future which would have far-reaching consequences, IEA warns in its latest World Energy Outlook”, IEA Press release, 9 November 2011: http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=426 .
An important Dutch-, US-, Austria– and Japan-authored paper by D.P. van Vuuren and 14 colleagues entitled “The representative concentration pathways: an overview”, Climatic Change, 109: 5-31, 2011: http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-874.pdf estimates that (among other things) world GDP outcomes for various “representative concentration pathways” (RCPs) ranging from RCP2.6 (the most aggressive climate change action) to RCP8.5 (business as usual) are vastly better with strong climate change action. Importantly, the improved world GDP outcome for the best scenario, RCP2.6, was apparent from 2000 onwards and by 2100 is over $100 trillion (2000 dollars) better than for the worst, BAU scenario, RCP8.5.
Jeff Spross, “Report: the more carbon emissions we cut, the better the world economy does”, Climate Progress, 27 August 2013: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/27/2530391/carbon-cut-better-economy/ has summarized the findings of D.P. van Vuuren: “The graph below [CO2 versus time for scenarios RCP2.6 to RCP8.5; Fig. 6 in van Vuuren et al., 2011] . shows the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million (ppm) under four different RCP scenarios. The RCP2.6 (the green line) features the most aggressive reduction in carbon emissions by the global community, which stabilizes the carbon concentration around 450 ppm and then slowly brings it down. The RCP8.5 (the blue line) shows us blasting nearly all the way to 1,000 ppm by 2100, which is what we’re likely to do if we continue business as usual… Now look at this graph [GDP versus time for scenarios RCP2.6 to RCP8.5; Fig. 2 in van Vuuren et al., 2011] . That’s the wealth the planet will produce as modeled under the four RCPs. Needless to say, it doesn’t bode well for the claim that aggressively cutting carbon emissions will wreck the economy… By the end of the century, the global economy would be well over $100 trillion larger under the most ambitious policies to reduce carbon emissions, versus the business-as-usual scenario. There’s a reason for this. Climate change means more droughts and altered rain patterns, leading to greater food insecurity. It means constricted freshwater supplies and heat waves, putting more strain on the infrastructure of cities and communities. It means less water to help run power stations and manufacturing processes, and altered river flows that can render shipping lanes useless. It means stronger storms and extreme weather that cause more damage, and it even means new and larger climate areas diseases can travel in. Add it all up, and it means a lot of damage to the economy. The RCP2.6 is the course of action most likely to keep us under two degrees Celsius of warming — the threshold above which climate change becomes really dangerous according to most scientists. But the RCP8.5 is the scenario most likely to get us near five degrees Celsius of warming, an outcome summed up by David Roberts of Grist as “hell on earth. Worse, the IPCC reports [the Assessment Report 5, AR5, is due out soon] are consensus documents between many players. That leads them to be conservative in their climate projections.”
For related information see the following useful websites: “Cut Carbon Emissions 80% by 2020”: https://sites.google.com/site/cutcarbonemissions80by2020/ ; “100% renewable energy by 2020”: https://sites.google.com/site/100renewableenergyby2020/ ; “2011 climate change course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course ; and “300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm”, 300.org: http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm .
J.E.N. Veron, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, T.M. Lenton, J.M. Lough, D.O. Obura, P. Pearce-Kelly, C.R.C. Sheppard, M. Spalding, M.G. Stafford-Smith and A.D. Rogers (top coral scientists), “The coral reef crisis: the critical importance of <350 ppm CO2”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, October 2009: “Temperature-induced mass coral bleaching causing mortality on a wide geographic scale started when atmospheric CO2 levels exceeded 320 ppm. When CO2 levels reached 340 ppm, sporadic but highly destructive mass bleaching occurred in most reefs world-wide, often associated with El Niño events. Recovery was dependent on the vulnerability of individual reef areas and on the reef’s previous history and resilience. At today’s level of 387 ppm, allowing a lag-time of 10 years for sea temperatures to respond, most reefs world-wide are committed to an irreversible decline. Mass bleaching will in future become annual, departing from the 4 to 7 years return-time of El Niño events. Bleaching will be exacerbated by the effects of degraded water-quality and increased severe weather events. In addition, the progressive onset of ocean acidification will cause reduction of coral growth and retardation of the growth of high magnesium calcite-secreting coralline algae.” [1].
[1]. J.E.N. Veron, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, T.M. Lenton, J.M. Lough, D.O. Obura, P. Pearce-Kelly, C.R.C. Sheppard, M. Spalding, M.G. Stafford-Smith and A.D. Rogers, “The coral reef crisis: the critical importance of <350 ppm CO2”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 58, (10), October 2009, 1428-1436: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-4X9NKG7-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1072337698&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6858c5ff7172f9355068393496a5b35d .
John Vidal (environment journalist with the UK Observer) (2014): “Dark snow: from the Arctic to the Himalayas the phenomenon that is accelerating glacier melting. Industrial dust and soil, blown thousands of miles, settle on ice sheets and add to rising sea level threat… The phenomenon of "dark snow" is being recorded from the Himalayas to the Arctic as increasing amounts of dust from bare soil, soot from fires and ultra-fine particles of "black carbon" from industry and diesel engines are being whipped up and deposited sometimes thousands of miles away. The result, say scientists, is a significant dimming of the brightness of the world's snow and icefields, leading to a longer melt season, which in turn creates feedback where more solar heat is absorbed and the melting accelerates… According to Kaitlin Keegan, a researcher at Dartmouth College in the US state of New Hampshire, the record melting in 2012 of Greenland's northeastern ice-sheet was largely a result of forest fires in Siberia and the US.Any reduction in albedo is a disaster, says Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Oceans Physics Group at Cambridge University.” [1].
[1]. .John Vidal, “Dark snow: from the Arctic to the Himalayas the phenomenon that is accelerating glacier melting”, The Guardian, 5 July 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/05/dark-snow-speeding-glacier-melting-rising-sea-levels .
Gaia Vince (writing in the UK Guardian) (2019): “Many scientists think it’s highly unlikely that we will stay below 2C (above pre-industrial levels) by the end of the century, let alone 1.5C. Most countries are not making anywhere near enough progress to meet these internationally agreed targets. Climate models predict we’re currently on track for a heating of somewhere between 3C and 4C for 2100, although bear in mind that these are global average temperatures – at the poles and over land (where people live), the increase may be double that. Predictions are tricky, however, as temperatures depend on how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide (CO2). Most models assume that it is not very sensitive – that’s where the lower 3C comes from – but a whole new set of models to be published in 2021 finds much greater sensitivity. They put heating at around 5C by the end of the century, meaning people could be experiencing as much as 10C of heating over land… Higher sea levels will make today’s low-lying islands and many coastal regions, where nearly half the global population live, uninhabitable, generating an estimated 2 billion refugees by 2100. Bangladesh alone will lose one-third of its land area, including its main breadbasket… It would mean abandoning huge tracts of the globe and moving Earth’s human population to the high latitudes: Canada, Siberia, Scandinavia, parts of Greenland, Patagonia, Tasmania, New Zealand and perhaps newly ice-free parts of the western Antarctic coast.” (Gaia Vince, “The heat is on over the climate crisis . Only radical measures will work”, Guardian, 19 May 2019: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/18/climate-crisis-heat-is-on-global-heating-four-degrees-2100-change-way-we-live ).
Peter Wadhams is professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, UK. He is best known for his work on sea ice and for his early warnings in 1990 about the thinning of Arctic summer sea ice. Professor Wadhams is the president of the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Ocean Commission on Sea Ice and Co-ordinator for the International Programme for Antarctic Buoys (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wadhams ).
Professor Peter Wadhams on the record loss of Arctic sea ice and the impending loss of all Arctic summer sea ice by 2015 (2012): “The entire ice cover is now on the point of collapse. The extra open water already created by the retreating ice allows bigger waves to be generated by storms, which are sweeping away the surviving ice. It is truly the case that it will be all gone by 2015. The consequences are enormous and represent a huge boost to global warming.” [1].
Peter Wadhams and colleagues on the threat of 50Gt methane from East Siberian Arctic Shelf: (2013): “Economic time bomb. As the amount of Arctic sea ice declines at an unprecedented rate, the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates, exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly. Higher methane concentrations in the atmosphere will accelerate global warming and hasten local changes in the Arctic, speeding up sea-ice retreat, reducing the reflection of solar energy and accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The ramifications will be felt far from the poles… To quantify the effects of Arctic methane release on the global economy, we used PAGE09. This integrated assessment model calculates the impacts of climate change and the costs of mitigation and adaptation measures… The methane pulse will bring forward by 15–35 years the average date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2°C above pre-industrial levels — to 2035 for the business-as-usual scenario and to 2040 for the low-emissions case (see 'Arctic methane'). This will lead to an extra $60 trillion (net present value) of mean climate-change impacts for the scenario with no mitigation, or 15% of the mean total predicted cost of climate-change impacts (about $400 trillion)." [2].
[Editor’s note: The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 on a 20 year time frame and with aerosol impacts considered is 105 times that of CO2 [3, 4]. The German WBGU (2009) and the Australian Climate Commission (2013) have estimated that no more than 600 billion tonnes of CO2 can be emitted between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050 if the world is to have a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2C temperature rise [5, 6]. The 50 Gt (billion tonnes) CH4 in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is thus equivalent to 50 billion tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes CO2-equivalent/tonne CH4 = 5,250 tonnes CO2-e or about NINE(9) times more than the world’s terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution budget. We are doomed unless we can stop this Arctic CH4 release].
Professor Peter Wadhams (head of the Polar Oceans Physics Group at 90-Nobel-Laureate Cambridge University) (2014): "Replacing an ice-covered surface, where the albedo may be 70% in summer, by an open-water surface with albedo less than 10%, causes more radiation to be absorbed by the Earth, causing an acceleration of warming. I have calculated that the albedo change from the disappearance of the last of the summer ice in 2012 was the equivalent to the effect of all the extra carbon dioxide that we have added to the atmosphere in the last 25 years." [7].
[]. Peter Wadhams quoted in n John Vidal, “Dark snow: from the Arctic to the Himalayas the phenomenon that is accelerating glacier melting”, The Guardian, 5 July 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/05/dark-snow-speeding-glacier-melting-rising-sea-levels .
[1]. Professor Peter Wadhams quoted in Julia Horton, “Arctic sea ice will vanish within three years, says expert ”, Scotsman, 29 August 2012: http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/arctic-sea-ice-will-vanish-within-three-years-says-expert-1-2493681 .
[2]. Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams, “Vast costs of Arctic change”, Nature, 499, 25 July 2013: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/499401a.html .
[3]. Drew T. Shindell , Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”, Science, 30 October 2009:
Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716 .
[4]. Shindell et al (2009), Fig.2: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only .
[5]. WBGU, “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach”: http://www.ecoequity.org/2009/10/solving-the-climate-dilemma-the-budget-approach/ .
[6]. Australian Climate Commission, “The critical decade 2013: a summary of climate change science, risks and responses”, 2013, p7: http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/The-Critical-Decade-2013-Summary_lowres.pdf .
[7]. Peter Wadhams quoted in n John Vidal, “Dark snow: from the Arctic to the Himalayas the phenomenon that is accelerating glacier melting”, The Guardian, 5 July 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/05/dark-snow-speeding-glacier-melting-rising-sea-levels .
Robert Toovey Walker (a professor of Latin American studies and geography at the University of Florida.) (2021): “It is doubtful that the Amazonian forest will remain resilient to changes in the regional hydroclimate given the nature of the contemporary threat matrix. The biggest concern involves intensification of drought-based tree mortality stemming from the synergies of fire, deforestation, and logging. Paleoindians set fires in Amazonia during the Holocene but never burned thousands of square kilometers of primary forest in a single season. Nor did wildfires sparked by agriculture race down logging roads into degraded forests flush with organic fuels from repeated ignition, ready to burn. The return period of serious drought once gave canopies sufficient time to recover from fire. The lengthening dry season has begun to squeeze away this respite.… If southern Amazonia’s dry season continues lengthening as it has over the past few decades, the drought of 2005 will become the region’s new normal before the end of the century. A forest cannot survive if its canopy needs more than 4 years to recover from a yearly event. In fact, southern Amazonia can expect to reach a tipping point sometime before 2064 at the current rate of dry-season lengthening (See Figure 2). By then, the return cycle of severe drought will have dipped below the time needed for the canopy to recover, at which point the forested landscape, denuded by fire, will be permanently invaded by flammable grasses and shrubs” (Robert Toovey Walker , “Collision course: development pushes Amazonia toward its tipping point”, Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Volume 63, 2021, Issue 1: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2021.1842711 ).
David Wallace-Wells (US journalist who writes on the worsening climate emergency) on the 2018 IPCC Report “Global warming of 1.5 °C” (2018): “UN says climate genocide is coming. It’s actually worse than that… Just two years ago, amid global fanfare, the Paris climate accords were signed — initiating what seemed, for a brief moment, like the beginning of a planet-saving movement. But almost immediately, the international goal it established of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius began to seem, to many of the world’s most vulnerable, dramatically inadequate; the Marshall Islands’ representative gave it a blunter name, calling two degrees of warming “genocide”. The alarming new report you may have read about this week from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which examines just how much better 1.5 degrees of warming would be than 2 — echoes the charge… Barring the arrival of dramatic new carbon-sucking technologies, which are so far from scalability at present that they are best described as fantasies of industrial absolution, it will not be possible to keep warming below two degrees Celsius — the level the new report describes as a climate catastrophe. As a planet, we are coursing along a trajectory that brings us north of four degrees by the end of the century. The IPCC is right that two degrees marks a world of climate catastrophe. Four degrees is twice as bad as that. And that is where we are headed, at present — a climate hell twice as hellish as the one the IPCC says, rightly, we must avoid at all costs” (David Wallace-Wells, “UN says climate genocide is coming. It’s actually worse than that”, New York Magazine, 10 October 2018: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html ).
Dr Selina Ward (University of Queensland coral scientist, WWF “Lights out for the reef”, co-author [1]) on 2C threat of irreversible damage to the Great Barrier Reef (2014): “If we continue as we are, we’ll get more degradation and more bleaching events. If we want to save the Great Barrier Reef we need to act immediately and make dramatic reductions in carbon pollution. We need to move away from fossil fuels.” [2].
Coral scientists Dr Selina Ward and Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg on the imminent 2C temperature rise threat to the survival of coral worldwide and of the Great Barrier Reef (2014): “An ongoing experiment conducted by The University of Queensland at Heron Island examining how future levels of climate change and associated ocean acidification will affect reefs has found it is likely that corals cannot survive more than a 2 degree average global temperature increase over pre-industrial levels before coral is no longer able to replace itself faster than coral bleaching will destroy it. If current levels of carbon pollution continue unchecked, the world is on track for at least three degrees of global average warming. Ocean acidification can also affect the ability of very young fish to avoid predators, to navigate effectively and recognize parent fish, ultimately affecting their ability to survive. Climate change causes warmer ocean temperatures as well as warmer air temperatures. Ninety per cent of the extra heat generated by climate change has gone into the ocean, leading to dramatic increases in the upper 700 metres of sea water around the planet. Coral bleaching occurs when coral gets too warm, and leads to coral dying in greater numbers than would otherwise have occurred. Coral bleaching in not known to have occurred before 1979 but is now a serious threat to the viability of coral reef ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef. The action that Australia and world governments take on climate change in the next few years will determine the fate of the Great Barrier Reef. This is the critical decade to avoid climate change tipping points. Helping save the reef is [one] of the many reasons Australia has to set stronger targets to reduce carbon pollution and make the transition to from fossil fuels to renewable energy” (see Dr Selina Ward, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg [1].
[Editor note: Yet climate criminal Australia has a dominant bipartisan Lib-Lab (Liberal -Laboral, Coalition Government-Labor Opposition) policy of a derisory 5% off 2000 greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 2020 and unlimited coal, gas and iron ore exports that is set to exceed the world’s terminal carbon pollution budget for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2C temperature rise by a factor of three (3).
From Treasury, ABARE, and US EIA data and assuming an 11% annual growth in iron ore exports, 2.4% annual growth in coal exports and 9% annual growth in gas exports, Australia’s Domestic and Exported greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is as follows (million tonnes CO2-e or Mt CO2-e). The 2020 projections are based on fossil fuel combustion and ignore ignore fugitive emissions due leakage of gas (mainly methane, CH4) from coal mines and in coal-seam gas (CSG) production (see “2011 climate change coursed”, section G: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course ).
2000: 565 (Domestic) + 505 (coal exports) + 17 (LNG exports) + 105 (iron ore exports) = 1,192.
2009: 600 (Domestic) + 784 (coal exports) + 31 (LNG exports) + 97 (iron ore exports) = 1,512.
2010: 578 (Domestic) + 803 (coal exports) + 34 (LNG exports) + 293 (iron ore exports) = 1,708.
2020: 621 (Domestic) + 1,039 (black coal exports) + 80 (LNG exports) + 59 (brown coal exports) + 772 (iron ore exports) = 2,571.
Lib-Lab Business As Usual threatens the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, our children and grandchildren, Humanity and the biosphere.
Decent pro-Humanity Australians and pro-Humanity people worldwide will vote 1 Green and put the corporatists last.]
[1]. Dr Selina Ward, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg [preface by Anna Rose], “Lights out for the reef”, prepared for Earth Hour 2014 [Saturday 29 March], WWF: http://earthhour.org.au/LIGHTS_OUT_FOR_THE_REEF_Earth_Hour_2014.pdf .
[2]. Oliver Milman, “Great Barrier Reef damage “irreversible” unless radical action taken” [University of Queensland researcher says unless temperature rise is kept below 2C, reef will cease to be coral ecosystem], Guardian, 6 March 2014: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/06/great-barrier-reef-damage-irreversible-unless-radical-action-taken .
The 2009 Report of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU, Wissenshaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen) was entitled “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach” and crucially stated: “The budget of CO2 emissions still available worldwide could be derived from the 2 degree C guard rail. By the middle of the 21st century a maximum of approximately 750 Gt CO2 (billion metric tons) may be released into the Earth’s atmosphere if the guard rail is to be adhered to with a probability of 67%. If we raise the probability to 75%, the cumulative emissions within this period would even have to remain below 600 Gt CO2. In any case, only a small amount of CO2 may be emitted worldwide after 2050. Thus, the era of an economy driven by fossil fuels will definitely have to come to an end within the first half of this century” (see WBGU, “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach”).
The consequences of this declaration of less than 600 Gt CO2 in emissions for a 75% chance of avoiding 2 degree C temperature rise are profound. Thus, would you board a plane if it had a 25% chance of crashing? Further, the average world population in the period 2010 and 2050 will be 8.321 billion (see UN Population Division, 2010 Revision). Accordingly the per capita share of this terminal CO2 pollution budget is less than 600 billion tonnes CO2/8.321 people = less than 72.1 tonnes CO2 per person.
Using data for the annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) (including land use change) for every country in the world in 2000 (see “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”, Wikipedia) one can determine how many years left at current rates of GHG pollution (in units of CO2-e or CO2-equivalent i.e. taking other GHGs into account) before a given country uses up its “share”. Thus for Australia 72.1 tonnes CO2-e per person / 25.9 tonnes CO2- per person per year in 2000 = 2.8 years left, based on the 2000 data. Note that this analysis does not take into account historical pollution of the atmosphere.
In 2009 Australia’s population was 22.0 million, Australia ‘s GHG pollution was 600 Mt CO2-e (CO2 equivalent i.e. taking into account other greenhouse gases such as methane, CH4, and nitrous oxide, N2O). 600 Mt per year/ 22.0 million people = 27.3 t CO2-e per person per year and at that rate of GHG pollution Australia would use up its 2010-2050 “share” in 72.1 t CO2-e per person/ 27.3 t CO2-e per person per year = 2.6 years.
However in 2009 Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution (in Mt CO2-e) was 600 (Domestic) + 784 (coal exports) + 31 (LNG exports) = 1,415 Mt CO2-e, this giving Australia an annual per capita Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2009 of 1,415 Mt CO2-e per year/ 22.0 million people = 64.3 tonnes CO2-e per person per year, this being 64.3/0.9 = 71.4 times greater than the annual per capita of Bangladesh (0.9 tonnes CO2-e per person per year). Based on its 2009 Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution rate, Australia will take 72.1 Mt CO2-e per person/ 64.3 t CO2-e per person per year = 1.1 years in the period 2010-2050 to use up its “fair share” of the terminal 600 Gt CO2-e carbon pollution budget i.e. Australia has ALREADY used up its “share” of the terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution budget.
Of course there is no way that Australia will meet its “all men are created equal” global obligations and cease polluting after having already in July 2011 achieved its “fair share” of the terminal 600 Gt CO2 global GHG pollution “budget”. Australia is fundamentally committed to coal and gas use and exports. Thus about 92% of Australia ‘s electricity derives from fossil fuel combustion, Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and Australia is a major liquid natural gas (LNG) exporter. The only major change adumbrated by the Gillard Labor Government is a coal to gas transition for electric power generation, this ignoring the reality that this will mean a doubling of greenhouse gas generation from the electricity sector because methane (CH4) is 85% of natural gas, leaks at about 3.3% and is 105 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year timeframe and taking aerosol impacts into account.
The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) has projected that Australia’s black coal exports will increase at an average rate of 2.6% per year over the next 20 years and that liquid natural gas (LNG) exports will increase at 9% per year over the same period (see “Invest in Australia”). Further, it is estimated that Australian exports of dried brown coal will reach 20 Mt by 2020, this corresponding to about 59 Mt CO2-e after combustion.
Accordingly, by 2020 and based on Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition and Labor Government (aka Lib-Lab) promises of “5% off Domestic GHG pollution by 2020” and ABARE projections (see ABARE, “Australian energy: national and state projections to 2029-30”), Australian Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution will be 621 Mt CO2-e (Domestic) (Australian Government, Treasury, “Strong Growth, Low Pollution. Modelling a Carbon Price”, 2011) + 1.326 x 784 =1,039 Mt CO2-e (coal exports) + 2.580 x 31 = 80 Mt CO2-e (LNG exports) + 59 Mt CO2-e (brown coal exports) = 1,799 Mt CO2-e i.e. 127% of that in 2009 (see “Analysis: Australian Labor Government Carbon Price-ETS scheme fails & entrenches climate change inaction”, Bellaciao, 16 July 2010).
Thus Australian policy flies in the face of science and “all men are created equal” which show that Australia has ALREADY used up it share of the 2010-2050 terminal GHG pollution budget. Instead Australia officially projects to INCREASE its annual pollution by 2020 by about 27% over that in 2009. How does Australia ‘s refusal to DECREASE its disproportionate GHG pollution compare with the conduct of other countries? Set out below is the time (at 2000 pollution rates) for every country in the World to use up its “fair share” of the World’s 600 Gt CO2 terminal GHG pollution budget.
Years to the required “fair shares” total cessation of GHG pollution at current rates of pollution = 72.1 tonnes CO2-e per person/ (tonnes CO2-e per person per year). The annual per capita GHG pollution for each country in 2000 with the land use contribution included (tonnes CO2-e per person per year) was used (the available data for Uruguay was the 2005 per capita data without the land use contribution included). It should be noted that fossil fuel use, livestock production and deforestation variously contribute to annual per capita GHG pollution. Of course if you can access more up-to-date data (e.g. the example of Australia) and then you can use it to determine an updated time for zero emissions. Note that this analysis does not take into account historical industrial pollution of the atmosphere (73% due to European countries; see 2008 Letter of Dr James Hansen, NASA GISS, to PM Kevin Rudd of Australia). Further, the computed "years left" are relative to 2010 - thus for years left relative to 2013 subtract 3 years.
Belize (0.8 years), Qatar (1.3), Guyana (1.4), Malaysia (1.9), United Arab Emirates (2.0), Kuwait (2.4), Papua New Guinea (2.5), Brunei (2.8), Australia (2.8; 1.1 if including its huge GHG Exports), Antigua & Barbuda (2.8), Zambia (2.9), Canada (3.0), Bahrain (3.0), United States (3.1), Trinidad & Tobago (3.3), Luxembourg (3.4), Panama (3.7), New Zealand (3.7), Estonia (4.0), Botswana (4.1), Ireland (4.3), Saudi Arabia (4.4), Venezuela (4.6), Indonesia (4.8), Equatorial Guinea (5.0), Belgium (5.0).
Turkmenistan (5.1 years ), Singapore (5.1), Czech Republic (5.2), Liberia (5.2), Netherlands (5.3), Russia (5.3), Nicaragua (5.4), Finland (5.5), Oman (5.6), Palau (5.6), Brazil (5.6), Uruguay (5.7), Denmark (5.8). Germany (5.9), Mongolia (6.1), Israel (6.1), Nauru (6.2), Norway (6.3), South Korea (6.5), Kazakhstan (6.6), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (6.6), Libya (6.7), Greece (6.7), Japan (6.7), Myanmar (6.7), Taiwan (6.8), Cyprus (7.0), Slovenia (7.1), Cambodia (7.1), Austria (7.2), Iceland (7.2), Peru (7.3), Paraguay (7.3), Ukraine (7.4), Poland (7.5), South Africa (7.6), Argentina (7.8), Slovakia (7.8), Spain (7.8), Italy (7.8), Central African Republic (8.0), France (8.3), Suriname (8.4), Belarus (8.4), Gabon (8.6), Ecuador (8.8), Bolivia (8.9), Cameroon (9.5), Iran (9.5), Côte d’Ivoire (9.6), Sweden (9.6), Seychelles (9.7), Guatemala (9.7), Bulgaria (9.7), Serbia & Montenegro (9.7), Hungary (9.7), Congo, Democratic Republic (formerly Zaire) (9.7), Uzbekistan (9.9), Portugal (10.0).
Switzerland (10.2 years), Azerbaijan (10.6), Angola (10.8), Bahamas (10.9), Benin (11.1), Zimbabwe (11.1), Laos (11.3), Mexico (11.3), Nepal (11.4), Colombia (11.4), Namibia (11.4), Chile (11.4), Malta (11.8), Congo, Republic (12.0), Madagascar (12.0), Croatia (12.2), Jamaica (12.2), Macedonia (12.4), Barbados (12.4), Latvia (12.6), Mauritania (12.9), Turkey (12.9), Romania (13.1), Lithuania (13.4), Costa Rica (13.4), Lebanon (13.6), North Korea (13.9), Thailand (14.1), Jordan (14.7), Honduras (15.3), Sudan (15.7), Bosnia & Herzegovina (16.0), Algeria (17.2), Iraq (17.2), Sierra Leone (17.2), Syria (18.0), China (18.5), Tunisia (19.5), Dominican Republic (20.6 years).
St Kitts & Nevis (21.8), Nigeria (21.8), Fiji (21.8), Guinea (22.5), Mauritius (22.5), Cuba (23.3), Togo (23.3), Vanuatu (24.0), Philippines (24.0), Malawi (24.0), Mali (24.9), Chad (24.9), Sri Lanka (25.8), Uganda (26.7), Dominica (26.7), St Lucia (26.7), Egypt (27.7), Niue (27.7), Ghana (27.7), Moldova (28.8), Grenada (28.8), El Salvador (30.0), Guinea-Bissau (30.0), Tanzania (30.0), Djibouti (30.0).
Pakistan (31.3 years), Samoa (31.3), Tonga (31.3), Morocco (32.8), Senegal (32.8), Albania (32.8), Georgia (32.8), Armenia (34.3), St Vincent & Grenadines (36.1), Kenya (36.1), Maldives (37.9), Kyrgyzstan (37.9), Burkina Faso (37.9), India (40.1), Cook Islands (40.1), Bhutan (42.4), Yemen (45.1), Tajikistan (45.1), Mozambique (45.1), Rwanda (45.1), Burundi (45.1), Lesotho (48.1), Swaziland (48.1).
Eritrea (51.5), Haiti (51.5), Solomon Islands (65.5), Vietnam (65.5), Cape Verde (65.5), Niger (65.5), Ethiopia (65.5), São Tomé and Príncipe (72.1), Afghanistan (80.1), The Gambia (80.1), Bangladesh (80.1), Comoros (103.0), Kiribati (120.2).
I must reiterate that there is no way that Australia will meet its global “fair shares” obligations because it is fundamentally committed to oil use and to coal and gas use and exports. Thus about 92% of Australia’s electricity derives from fossil fuel combustion, Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and a major liquid natural gas (LNG) exporter. Both the major parties, the Liberal –National Party Coalition Opposition (the Libs) and the Labor Government (the Labs) (collectively known as the Lib-Labs) are committed to a derisory policy of 5% off 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2020 but with greed-driven growth of coal and LNG Exports (at 2.6% pa and 9% pa, respectively). Australia is committed to a greedy and inhumane course of climate exceptionalism, climate racism and climate injustice. Having ALREADY used up its share of the terminal 600 Gt CO2-e budget, climate criminal Australia is now greedily and disproportionately using up the quotas of other countries (climate racism), with serious global implications as set out below. .
Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only about 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming. Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a Climate Genocide involving deaths of about 10 billion people this century, mostly non-Europeans, this including about 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. Already 18 million people die avoidably every year in Developing countries (minus China) due to deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease and man-made global warming is already clearly worsening this global avoidable mortality holocaust. However 10 billion avoidable deaths due to global warming this century will yield an average global annual avoidable death rate of 100 million per year (see “Climate Genocide”).
Where does your country come in this “years left until zero emissions” analysis? The World is badly running out of time. The World will have to take action against the more notorious climate criminal and climate racist countries such as Australia through Sanctions, Boycotts, Sporting Boycotts (as were successfully applied to Apartheid South Africa through exclusion from the Olympic Games and other events), Green Tariffs, International Court of Justice litigations and International Criminal Court prosecutions.
Professor Andrew Weaver (a climate scientist at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, where he has the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling, a lead author of a chapter on Global Climate Projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis”, and also a lead author for Chapter 12 of the IPCC fifth assessment report)) commenting on the Global Carbon Project Global Carbon Budget 2012 Report (2012): “We are losing control of our ability to get a handle on the global warming problem.” [1].
[1]. Andrew Weaver, quoted in “Study: Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide up again, 2 degree limit to global warning unlikely”, Washington Post, 3 December 2012: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/study-carbon-dioxide-emissions-worldwide-up-again-2-degree-limit-to-global-warming-unlikely/2012/12/02/8658886e-3caa-11e2-8a5c-473797be602c_story.html .
Gail Whiteman is a professor of business society management and holds the Sustainability and Climate Change chair at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (RSM) . Professor Whiteman was a 2011 Global Finalist in the Aspen Institute’s high-profile ranking of Faculty Pioneers in sustainability. Her research aims to help organisations deal more effectively with sustainability challenges, an objective she established during her former career in the private sector. Professor Whiteman combines her role at RSM with that of part time Professor in-Residence at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (see: http://www.rsm.nl/people/gail-whiteman/ ).
Professor Gail Whiteman and colleagues on the threat of 50Gt methane from East Siberian Arctic Shelf: (2013): “Economic time bomb. As the amount of Arctic sea ice declines at an unprecedented rate, the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates, exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly. Higher methane concentrations in the atmosphere will accelerate global warming and hasten local changes in the Arctic, speeding up sea-ice retreat, reducing the reflection of solar energy and accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The ramifications will be felt far from the poles… To quantify the effects of Arctic methane release on the global economy, we used PAGE09. This integrated assessment model calculates the impacts of climate change and the costs of mitigation and adaptation measures… The methane pulse will bring forward by 15–35 years the average date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2°C above pre-industrial levels — to 2035 for the business-as-usual scenario and to 2040 for the low-emissions case (see 'Arctic methane'). This will lead to an extra $60 trillion (net present value) of mean climate-change impacts for the scenario with no mitigation, or 15% of the mean total predicted cost of climate-change impacts (about $400 trillion)." [1].
[Editor’s note: The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 on a 20 year time frame and with aerosol impacts considered is 105 times that of CO2 [2, 3]. The German WBGU (2009) and the Australian Climate Commission (2013) have estimated that no more than 600 billion tonnes of CO2 can be emitted between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050 if the world is to have a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2C temperature rise [4, 5]. The 50 Gt (billion tonnes) CH4 in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is thus equivalent to 50 billion tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes CO2-equivalent/tonne CH4 = 5,250 tonnes CO2-e or about NINE (9) times more than the world’s terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution budget. We are doomed unless we can stop this Arctic CH4 release.]
[1]. Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams, “Vast costs of Arctic change”, Nature, 499, 25 July 2013: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/499401a.html .
[2]. Drew T. Shindell , Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”, Science, 30 October 2009:
Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716 .
[3]. Shindell et al (2009), Fig.2: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only .
[4]. WBGU, “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach”: http://www.ecoequity.org/2009/10/solving-the-climate-dilemma-the-budget-approach/ .
[5]. Australian Climate Commission, “The critical decade 2013: a summary of climate change science, risks and responses”, 2013, p7: http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/The-Critical-Decade-2013-Summary_lowres.pdf .
UK writer Jeanette Winterson’s novel “The Gap of Time” (Penguin, London , 2015, page 162) is a modern version of William Shakespeare’s play “The Winter’s Tale” and includes the following conversation between the lovers Zel (WS’s Florizel, son of King Polixenes of Bohemia) and Perdita (WS’s Perdita, daughter of Sicilia’s Queen Hermione and King Leontes who in mad jealousy believes that Polixenes has fathered both his son Mamillius and the girl subsequently called Perdita). With the passage of time (16 years), the young lovers Zel and Perdita sort out the mess bequeathed them (would that this were to be true of the worsening Climate Genocide but a catastrophic plus 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise is now unavoidable):
“Zel: “Benjamin Franklin said that if you have to choose between liberty and security, choose liberty.
Perdita: I guess they didn’t have world terrorism back then.
Zel: That’s just a way of scaring us.
Perdita: I don’t agree. People get killed.
Zel: Yes they do, but some guy with a bomb in a backpack – how often does that happen, and to how many people? But no work, no, home, no healthcare, no hope – that’s the everyday life of millions, billions of people. To me, that the threat. And climate change is the threat. And war, and drought and famine…
Perdita: OK – so we need security. A secure future.
Zel: No!. We need to be free from corporate control that runs the world for the few and ruins it for the rest of us”.
World Bank-commissioned Report “Turn Down the Heat” states that “While the global community has committed itself to holding warming below 2°C, to prevent “dangerous “ climate change, the sum total of current policies – in place and pledged – will very likely lead to warming far in excess of this level. Indeed present emissions trends put the world plausibly on a path toward 4°C warming within this century.”
The World Bank Report concludes: “A 4°C world will pose unprecedented challenges to humanity. It is clear that large regional as well as global scale damages and risks are very likely to occur well before this level of warming. Is reached. This report has attempted to identify the scope of these challenges driven by responses of the earth system and various human and natural systems. Although no quantification of the full scale of human damage is yet possible, the picture that emerges challenges an often implicit assumption that climate change will not significantly undermine economic growth. It seems clear that climate change in a 4°C World would seriously undermine poverty alleviation in many regions. Thus is supported by past observations of the negative effects of climate change on economic growth in developing countries. While developed countries have been and are projected to be adversely affected by impacts resulting from climate change, adaptive capacity in developing regions are weaker. The burden of climate change in the future will very likely be borne differentially by those in regions already highly vulnerable to climate change and variability. Given that it remains uncertain whether adaptation and further progress towards development goals will be possible in at this level of climate change, the projected 4°C warming must simply must not be allowed to occur – the heat must be turned down. Only early, cooperative , international actions can make that happen.” [1].
{1]. World Bank-commissioned Report “Turn Down the Heat” (see “Turn down the heat. Why a 4oC warmer world must be avoided”, A Report for the World Bank, by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, November 2012: http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf ).
According to Rutgers Today (the news outlet for Rutgers, the State University if New Jersey): ” In a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Morgan Schaller and James Wright contend that following a doubling in carbon dioxide levels, the surface of the ocean turned acidic over a period of weeks or months and global temperatures rose by 5 degrees centigrade – all in the space of about 13 years… Wright, a professor of earth and planetary sciences in the School of Arts and Sciences and Schaller, a research associate, say the finding is significant in considering modern-day climate change.“We’ve shown unequivocally what happens when CO2 increases dramatically – as it is now, and as it did 55 million years ago”Wright said. “The oceans become acidic and the world warms up dramatically. Our current carbon release has been going on for about 150 years, and because the rate is relatively slow, about half the CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans and forests, causing some popular confusion about the warming effects of CO2. But 55 million years ago, a much larger amount of carbon was all released nearly instantaneously, so the effects are much clearer” (see Ken Branson, “New finding shows that climate change can happen in a geological instant ”, Rutgers News, 6 October 2013: http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/new-finding-shows-climate-change-can-happen-geological-instant/20131003#.Ul42lFP3S42 ).
A Wikipedia report on this in relation to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) states that “New research published in 2013 indicates that in only 13 years 3000 gigatons of carbon were released, followed by a much faster rise in temperatures than previously thought” but explains that the precise cause of this events and the associated max extinctions is not clear an d states that “There is a debate about whether there was a large enough amount of methane hydrate to be a major carbon source; a recent paper proposed that was the case. The present-day global methane hydrate reserve is poorly constrained, but is mostly considered to be between 2,000 ~ 10,000 Gt. However, because the global ocean bottom temperatures were ~6 degree C higher than today, which implies a much smaller volume of sediment hosting gas hydrate than today, the global amount of hydrate before the PETM has been thought to be much less than present-day estimates” (see “Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)”, Wikilpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum ).
A report on this discovery in RE New Economy states: “Significantly, the editor of this new study is none other than the “dean of climate scientists,” Wallace Broecker who popularized the term “global warming.” Two decades ago, Broecker said, “The climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking at it with sticks.” He stood by that warning in a 2012 interview: “We’re in for big trouble,” he says matter-of-factly. “There’s been a “true disruption of the basic climate of the planet.” “My point [with the 'angry beast' metaphor] was that by adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, we were poking our climate system without being sure how it would respond,” he says. At the rate we are spewing carbon pollution into the atmosphere, one might even say we are punching the climate beast in the nose. Paleoclimate studies, including this new one, suggests that is a very, very bad move.” (see Joe Romm, “Earth may have warmed 5C in 13 years when CO2 doubled”, RE New Economy, 14 October 2013: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/petm-shocker-co2-levels-doubled-55-million-years-ago-earth-may-warmed-9f-13-years-61702 ).
Note: There is 700- 750 GtC in atmosphere (mostly as 750 x 3.7 = circa 2,800 Gt CO2; half due to historical fossil fuel combustion) (see “2011 climate change course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course ). Dr Chris Hope and colleagues on the threat of 50Gt methane from East Siberian Arctic Shelf: (2013): “Economic time bomb. As the amount of Arctic sea ice declines at an unprecedented rate, the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates, exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly” (see Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams, “Vast costs of Arctic change”, Nature, 499, 25 July 2013: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/499401a.html ).
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 on a 20 year time frame and with aerosol impacts considered is 105 times that of CO2. The German WBGU (2009) and the Australian Climate Commission (2013) have estimated that no more than 600 billion tonnes of CO2 can be emitted between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050 if the world is to have a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2C temperature rise. The 50 Gt (billion tonnes) CH4 in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is thus equivalent to 50 billion tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes CO2-equivalent/tonne CH4 = 5,250 tonnes CO2-e or about NINE(9) times more than the world’s terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution budget. We are doomed unless we can stop this Arctic CH4 release. We are evidently facing a PETM scenario in coming decades.
Professor Donald Wuebbles (Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana) addressing the American Geophysical Union (2015): “Dangerous climate change is already here. Certain types of extreme events are becoming more common, a trend likely to continue… [showed a figure from reinsurance company Munich Re that since 1980 the annual number of droughts, floods and storms have increased roughly 4-fold, 4-fold and 2-fold, respectively, while annual earthquake incidence is essentially unchanged]… For 2 degrees C of global warming [3.6 degrees F], the hottest days will be 2-5 degrees C [3.6-9 degrees F] warmer than pre-industrial levels… What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic… Sea ice is now a mere shadow of its former self [half of summer sea ice extent is now gone, and 75 percent of sea ice volume]. And what’s left is rotten and slushy… [re global observing networks declining in quality] this is a very serious concern. We are losing capabilities we have now. We [scientists] are going to have to push very hard on this” (Donald Wuebbles quoted in David Appell, “Don Webbles: dangerous climate change is already here”, Yale Climate Connections 16 December 2015: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/12/some-severe-weather-events-more-common-a-likely-trend/ ).
Oliver Yates (former Clean Energy Finance Corporation chief executive, former bank executive, former member of the Australian Liberal Party (conservative party) and independent candidate for the blue-ribbon Liberal seat of Kooyong in Melbourne) (2018): "If we don't address climate change and start to reduce our emissions, then it's likely that billions of families could be forced to move home unnecessarily… [I] cannot understand how Liberals would knowingly inflict damage on others when they have a perfectly workable economic cure in front of them [clean energy]” (Nicole Hasham, “Former Clean Energy finance chief, Oliver Yates, slams Turnbull government’s “immoral” climate policies”, Sydney Morning Herald, 7 November 2017: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/former-clean-energy-finance-chief-oliver-yates-slams-turnbull-governments-immoral-climate-policies-20171106-gzfobv.html ).
Hideki Yukawa (Japanese physicist and 1949 Nobel Laureate in Physics for work on elementary particles) co-signed the Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with 10 other eminent scientists (all but Infeld were or became Nobel Laureates) that called for “an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons” and concluded with the resolution: “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.” (The Russel-Einstein Manifesto (1955): http://pugwash.org/1955/07/09/statement-manifesto/ ).
Tom Zeller is a senior writer for the US Huffington Post (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/climate-change-math-politicians_b_2147001.ht
Tom Zeller on 350.org leader Bill Mc Kibben’s key numbers (2102): “McKibben's magic numbers are 2, 565 and 2,795. The number 2 stands for 2 degrees Celsius. This is the somewhat arbitrary number that, by dint of repetition since the mid-1990s and, perhaps, humanity's dislike of ambiguity, has become the upper threshold for what is considered tolerable planetary warming. Allowing average global temperatures to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius (roughly 3.6 degrees, for Fahrenheit holdouts in the U.S. and Belize) could well be a tipping point beyond which the planet's natural climate system, overloaded with human-produced greenhouse gases, goes permanently out of whack… That brings us to the two remaining numbers that McKibben wants to highlight: 565 and 2,795. The former is the upper limit, in gigatons, of carbon dioxide that many scientists believe humanity can still dump into the atmosphere to avoid the 2 degree uptick described above. The latter is the estimated amount, also in gigatons, of carbon dioxide embedded in the world's proven coal, oil and gas reserves. If we pull all of that out of the earth and burn it, McKibben suggests, the math doesn't add up very well for life on planet Earth.” [1].
[1]. Tom Zeller, “Amid climate change inaction in Washington, activist urges Americans to “do the Math””, Huffington Post, 16 November 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/climate-change-math-politicians_b_2147001.html .
War is the penultimate in racism and genocide the ultimate in racism. It is very powerful to quote expert opinion. Thus eminent physicist Stephen Hawking on the key existential threats facing Humanity (2018): “We see great peril if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change” (Stephen Hawking, “Brief Answers to the Big Questions”, John Murray, 2018, Chapter 7). Most of the following websites alphabetically list expert opinions in 4 inter-connected key areas, namely “Reverse climate change”, “Stop lying and censorship”, “End war and genocide”, and “Free Palestine”, Everyone is invited to make use of this substantial resource and to feel free to disseminate this list to everyone they can.
REVERSE CLIMATE CHANGE
“1% on 1%: one percent annual wealth tax on One Percenters”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/1-on-1 .
“2 degrees C”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2-degrees-c .
“100% renewable energy by 2020”: https://sites.google.com/site/100renewableenergyby2020/ .
“300 ppm CO2 ASAP: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-ppm-co2-asap .
“2011 climate change course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course .
“300.org”: . https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org .
“300.org climate crisis glossary”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/300-org-climate-crisis
“300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm CO2”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm .
“Are we doomed?”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/are-we-doomed .
“Banyule Climate Action Now”: https://sites.google.com/site/banyuleclimateactionnow/ .
“Biofuel Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/biofuelgenocide/ .
“Carbon Debt Carbon Credit”: https://sites.google.com/site/carbondebtcarboncredit/ .
“Climate crisis articles”: https://sites.google.com/site/climatecrisisarticles/home .
“Climate Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/ .
“Climate Justice & Intergenerational Equity”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-justice .
"Climate Revolution Now": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-revolution .
“Cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020”: https://sites.google.com/site/cutcarbonemissions80by2020/ .
“Divest from fossil fuels”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/divest-from-fossil-fuels .
“Eco-socialism, green socialism”: https://sites.google.com/site/ecosocialismgreensocialism/
“Gas is not clean energy”: https://sites.google.com/site/gasisnotcleanenergy/ .
“Methane bomb threat”: https://sites.google.com/site/methanebombthreat/ .
“Nuclear weapons ban, end poverty & reverse climate change”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/nuclear-weapons-ban .
“Older people and climate change”: https://sites.google.com/site/olderpeopleandclimatechange/home .
“Science and economics experts: carbon tax needed and not carbon trading”, 300.org: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/sciennce-economics-experts-carbon-tax-needed-not-carbon-trading .
“Stop air pollution deaths”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-air-pollution-deaths .
“Stop climate crime”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-climate-crime .
"Too late to avoid global warming catastrophe": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/too-late-to-avoid-global-warming .
“Yarra Valley Climate Action Group”: https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home .
STOP LYING & CENSORSHIP
“ABC censorship”: https://sites.google.com/site/abccensorship/abc-censorship .
“ABC fact-checking unit & incorrect reportage by the ABC (Australia’s BBC)”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/abc-fact-checking-unit .
“Boycott Murdoch media”: https://sites.google.com/site/boycottmurdochmedia/ .
“Censorship by ABC Late Night Live”: https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbyabclatenightlive/ .
"Censorship by ABC Saturday Extra": https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbyabclatenightlive/censorship-by-abc-sat .
“Censorship by the ABC”: https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbytheabc/ .
“Censorship by Crikey (Australia)”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-crikey .
“Censorship by SBS (Australia)”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-sbs-australia .
“Censorship by The Age”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-the-age .
“Censorship by the BBC”: https://sites.google.com/site/censorshipbythebbc/ .
“Censorship by The Conversation”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by .
"Censorship by The Guardian Australia": https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home/censorship-by-the-guardian-a .
"Censorship by The Guardian UK": https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/censorship-by-the-guardian-uk .
“Educational apartheid”: https://sites.google.com/site/educationalapartheid/ .
“Experts: US did 9/11”: https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ .
“Expose holocaust denial & ignoring”: https://sites.google.com/site/exposeholocaustdenialignoring/Home .
“Exposing Australia”: https://sites.google.com/site/exposingaustralia/home .
“Free university education” : https://sites.google.com/site/freeuniversityeducation/home
“Lying by omission”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/lying-by-omission .
“Mainstream media censorship”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammediacensorship/home .
“Mainstream media lying”: https://sites.google.com/site/mainstreammedialying/ .
“Questions Q&A won’t ask”: https://sites.google.com/site/questionsqawontask/home .
“Subversion of Australia”: https://sites.google.com/site/subversionofaustralia/home .
END WAR AND GENOCIDE
“Aboriginal Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/aboriginalgenocide/ .
“Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ .
“Iraqi Holocaust, Iraqi Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/ .
“Afghanistan Genocide essays”: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanistangenocideessays/ .
“Art for peace, planet, mother & child”: https://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/ .
“Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Bengal Famine) writings of Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/bengali-holocaust .
“Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/home .
“Gideon Polya writing”: https://sites.google.com/site/gideonpolyawriting/ .
“Iraq Genocide essays”: https://sites.google.com/site/iraqgenocideessays/ .
“Muslim Holocaust Muslim Genocide”: http://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ .
“Poetry reviews by Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/poetryreviewsbygideonpolya/ .
“Report genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/reportgenocide/ .
"State crime and non-state terrorism": https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/ .
“Stop state terrorism”: https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/ .
FREE PALESTINE
Apartheid Israeli state terrorism: (A) individuals exposing Apartheid Israeli state terrorism, and (B) countries subject to Apartheid Israeli state terrorism”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/apartheid-israeli-state-terrorism .
“Boycott Apartheid Israel”: https://sites.google.com/site/boycottapartheidisrael/.
“Gaza Concentration Camp”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/gaza-concentration .
“Jews Against Racist Zionism”: https://sites.google.com/site/jewsagainstracistzionism/ .
“Non-Jews Against Racist Zionism”: https://sites.google.com/site/nonjewsagainstracistzionism/ .
“One-state solution, unitary state, bi-national state for a democratic, equal rights, post-apartheid Palestine: https://sites.google.com/site/boycottapartheidisrael/one-state-solution .
“Palestinian Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/ .
“Palestinian Genocide essays”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestinegenocideessays/ .
"Zionist quotes re racism and Palestinian Genocide": https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/zionist-quotes .