Climate Change



The depressing reality about climate change is that we could solve the problem, at manageable cost, but are failing to do so. This failure is due to a mixture of blindness and self-deception. The blindness comes from those, such as US president Donald Trump, who deny the reality of climate change. The self-deception comes from those who accept the reality, but only pretend to solve it. We must do better than this — and very soon. This is no longer a scientific or technological challenge, it is far more a political and social one.

The Emissions Gap Report 2018 from the UN lays out the past failure with brutal clarity. This year will most likely be the fourth warmest year on record since 1880, with the past five years the warmest ever recorded. Worse, in 2017 emissions increased once again, after three years of stagnation. We are still to turn this corner.

Furthermore, notes the report, the “nationally determined commitments” made in the context of the Paris agreement, in 2015, would be insufficient, even if implemented, to keep the increase in global average temperatures to below 1.5C above the pre-industrial level, as most experts think desirable. Instead, states the report, “current NDCs imply global warming of about 3C by 2100, with warming continuing afterwards”. Moreover, the shift has to start now: if emissions do not turn down before 2030, it will be too late to stay below 2C.



The tragedy is that while the scientists and technologists have won the argument, the climate sceptics and deniers have effectively won the policy debate: we are doing far too little, far too late. It is now essential to transform the discussion from fear of what the carbon-transition will cost to hope for the opportunities it will bring. What is needed now are people and organisations — above all, politicians — able and willing to persuade humanity that a promised land of sustainable prosperity for all is within our collective reach.
 
Crist E. Reimagining the human. Science 2018;362:1242. Reimagining the human

Earth is in the throes of a mass extinction event and climate change upheaval, risking a planetary shift into conditions that will be extremely challenging, if not catastrophic, for complex life (1).

Although responsibility for the present trajectory is unevenly distributed, the overarching drivers are rapid increases in (i) human population, (ii) consumption of food, water, energy, and materials, and (iii) infrastructural incursions into the natural world.

As the “trends of more” on all these fronts continue to swell, the ecological crisis is intensifying (2–4).

Given that human expansionism is causing mass extinction of nonhuman life and threatening both ecological and societal stability, why is humanity not steering toward limiting and reversing its expansionism?
 

Attachments

"This was the year in which we heard more wisdom from the mouth of teenagers than from those of Seventies with an executive mandate."

 


Oil majors Chevron and Occidental Petroleum are taking a minority stake in a Canadian start-up that has developed technologies to suck carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and use it to make synthetic fuel.

The deal marks the first significant investment by energy groups into the technology, known as direct air capture, which pulls carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by using chemicals and fans.

Carbon Engineering, a Bill Gates-backed start-up based in Squamish, British Columbia, said the new investment was part of a $60m fundraising round that would help it design and build commercial-scale plants. The company has not disclosed its valuation.

The investment comes at a time when the oil and gas industry is racing to find ways to reduce carbon emissions while also maintaining its core business model, producing and selling fuel. Part of the answer could be “negative emissions”, which refers to a range of technologies that reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the air.
 


The popularity of vegan foods continues to grow, with January seen as a traditional time to consider giving them a try.

Milk alternatives, such as oat, soy, almond or coconut, are one area of interest, with sales rising in the UK.

A scientific study suggests the greenhouse gas emissions used in the production of plant-based milks are lower than for dairy milk.

But which milk has the smallest impact on the planet?

Producing a glass of dairy milk results in almost three times the greenhouse gas emissions of any non-dairy milks, according to a University of Oxford study. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers - ORA - Oxford University Research Archive


_105099201_milk_alternatives_v5-nc.png
 


Amazing prescient 1990 lecture on the threat of human-caused climate change by the one and only Carl Sagan, delivered in that characteristic magical Sagan style.
 
Back
Top