World Must Cut Carbon Emissions to Zero by 2050 or Face Disaster, Studies Find
Scientists used advanced computer models to account for all aspects of the natural carbon cycle that routinely creates and removes carbon dioxide. Their conclusion was simple and straightforward: Within the next few decades the entire world—developing and industrialized nations alike—must stop using fossil fuels and engaging in other activities that produce excess greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Or else.
Can Mankind Reduce Its Carbon Footprint in Time?
Despite the increased threat to the planet and mankind outlined in the new studies, there is a serious question of whether a goal of near-zero carbon emissions by mid-century can be met. Although the technology needed to achieve it already exists, the question is whether enough political will can be mustered in time to make it happen—even though actions taken now will affect our planet and the lives of its people for thousands of years.
The U.S. Senate is poised to vote on a bill that would reduce U.S. emissions 70 percent by 2050, and all three presidential candidates favor cuts ranging from 60 percent (McCain) to 80 percent (Obama and Clinton) by mid-century.
U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a champion of climate change legislation, said the new studies "make it clear we must act now to address global warming."
"It won't be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling," she said in an interview with the Washington Post. "It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves."
Europe has been operating on the same theory, that cutting emissions in developed nations 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050 would solve the problem, according to EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.
"If that is not enough, common sense is that we would not let the planet be destroyed," he told the Post.
Promises Made, Promises Broken
Let’s hope he’s right. The sad fact is that many nations have been promising to cut their carbon emissions for about the last 10 years, but worldwide carbon emissions from human activities keep rising.
The sooner we start to reverse that trend the better, because the new studies make it clear that the warming occurring now will continue to heat up the planet in the future, and the effect will be cumulative if we continue pouring more and more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Although the natural carbon cycle could remove about half of the human-generated carbon dioxide from the atmosphere within 100 years after emissions stopped, the rest would continue to affect the climate for thousands of years, partly because of deep-sea warming that would continue to raise the global temperature even after carbon emissions were severely reduced or eliminated.
Most scientists agree that a global temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels would have disastrous consequences. One of the new studies found that continuing on our present course until 2100 would result in a global temperature increase of 7.2 degrees; if carbon emissions were not eliminated until 2300, the global temperature will have increased 15 degrees.
White House Position: Faith or Folly?
Confronted with these new findings, the Bush administration took its usual blasé approach to the problem. According to James L. Connaughton, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality: "We've done this kind of thing before. We will do it again. It will just take a sufficient amount of time."
But that is exactly the point of these new findings: we don’t have a lot of time left. We must take action now.
Also Read:
- Carbon Output Must Near Zero to Avert Danger, Studies Say -- The Washington Post
- All About Global Warming
- Global Warming is Unstoppable and Humans are to Blame
- Serious Effects of Global Warming Already Have Begun
- Controlling Global Warming is Cost-Effective and Within Reach
- Strange Environmental Bedfellows -- Kathy Gill, About.com: US Politics
Comments
When reading articles such as this make sure you do your research to see how plausible their “studies” actually are. Maybe the so called “global warming” is a serious threat or maybe the earth is just going through natural climate changes. We have had ice ages and times of severe drought in the past and speaking of the past the only recorded global weather patterns we have to go by are from the last couple hundred years. So all Im saying before you believe the doomsday hype is do some research.
Travis is quite right. If you do some simple arithmetic, if ALL the world’s fossil fuel that is left is burned and turned into CO2, and NOT allowing for ANY sequestering or compensation by the environment, it will add only 70ppm CO2 to our current level.
Also, if the CO2 level were to double somehow, temps would only rise by 1.7degC- hardly noticeable to the planet, cosidering diurnal vsariation is 10degC + anyways.
And yet, virtually every climate scientist in the world disagrees with both of you.
Is it your contention that the thousands of scientists who are actually researching these issues and subjecting their findings to peer review have got it all wrong?
I agree with Larry. I’d trust the theories of scientists around the globe more than you two, although you do show some very good points.
Larry- your comment about “thousands” of scientists is plagued by the same exageration as the “facts” they claim. Try, possibly, “hundreds” of scientists who prostitute themselves for the sake of politics and research funding. There’s at least an equal number who agree that, if GW even exists, it’s not anthropogenic. You do realize that the small warming of the last 30 years is not even statisticsally significant, don’t you? Your thousands of scientists always seem to leave that fact out of their analyses.
You’re just wrong about this, Guido. I’m not exaggerating the number of scientists who see climate change as a serious problem supported by an increasing amount of solid research. And there are not an equal number who disagree. Not any more.
And as for your assertion that the scientists who don’t agree with your views are simply prostituting themselves “for the sake of politics and research funding,” are you suggesting that those who take a different view are any less political and any less interested in funding for their research? The only difference is that many of them get their funding from oil companies like ExxonMobil and the groups that represent them.
We don’t have to argue statistics at this point, Guido. The actual effects are becoming all too apparent in many places around the world.
OK, for the sake of this discussion, let me concede the point. But the consequences in terms of social and economic cost of this past winter (a fluke or part of the normal cycle? It’s right on “schedule”.) which produced record cold and snowfall across the entire northern hemisphere and drought, with decreased farm production in the southern, should show us that warming is good and cooling bad for us and the environment, all things considered.