Re:
6C by end of century, I think the waters are somewhat muddier than
that.
Certainly
continuing with business as usual assures 6C at the very least as I believe it
ignores multiple positive feedback effects and principally accounts for
continuing carbon dioxide emissions, and as such as would theoretically see more
temperature increase if we were able to continue business as usual for so
long.
However
in reality civilisation arguably cannot continue to operate in that manner and
collapse will at least mostly prevent further human release of carbon dioxide -
even though natural feedbacks may well add a significant portion into the system
anyway. Given the issues noted at <1C in the current day it seems more
important that people understand the severity of the problems being experienced
today and likely to be experienced in the much nearer future (there is a bigger
lie here - that the world was fine without climate change - it
wasn't).
To
that extent I agree entirely that the present day situation ought to be
classified as an emergency and people ought to be better informed. The focus
arguably ought to be on what happens in the next few years as Arctic changes
really start to bite. The language of decades and centuries has been used for
too long and is no longer entirely appropriate.
One
can do one's little bit to try to raise public awareness of the issues - it's
hard to see what one can do beyond that though. It takes critical mass - and
against the backdrop of greed fuelled misinformation and vested interests that
run the show to boot.
Regards,
Douglas
PS
Many people voice the opinion that the public and governments will magically
change if things only get bad enough. I fail to see this - or any real signs of
this. It seems far more likely that when things get bad enough governments will
start to declare states of emergency and martial law and try to retain control
and compete for resources through any means available. And that, as they say,
will be that.
From:
Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Peter Carter
Sent: 23 April 2013 23:46
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mega-tsunami in N Atlantic
and denial of life-threats
We can talk about all
kinds of emergency climate change mitigation measures, but unless the public is
alerted to the fact we are all in a planetary climate emergency nothing is going
to be done.
Today we are committed
to a 6C heating by 2100,..... 3C by 2050, 2C by
2035.
This 6C 2100 is a real
commitment, that only the International Energy Agency 2008 and every year) has
been warning about.
It is the most
definite commitment because all national and international plans are to keep us
on a fossil fuel dominated economy.
There is no plan or
mechanism to convert off fossil fuels.
Even most scientists
are unaware and those who are don’t want to talk about it - this is what I found
at the European Geophysical Union Assembly where I presented the evidence for
the planetary emergency.
So I would urge we
discuss ways to communicate the terrible situation to the public- who are being
kept in the dark.
Governments must be
pressured to act and held accountable for their inaction.
Regards, Peter
Carter
From: [log in to unmask]
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">CCG
Sent:
Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re:
Mega-tsunami in N Atlantic and denial of
life-threats
Ocean
fertilisation using iron remains unproven and potentially questionable as I
understand it. So the question is how one could achieve it without the issues
associated with dumping iron compounds (a little different from much more widely
dispersed windblown dust).
Biochar
is the best contender in my view - easy to motivate people to do it in theory
with financial incentives. But for any CDR approach, you need to consider just
how many gigatonnes of the stuff are being added to the atmosphere (to stay for
a long time) every single year. To achieve meaningful drawdown you not only need
to remove as much as is being added - but more on top. If anyone cares to
provide verifiable calculations backing up the argument to say it's more than a
minor option - I'd be interested (as is I think it requires near total
elimination of emissions to come into reach for helping).
Enhanced
rock weathering I think is also a potential - although there is the small matter
of energy inputs to grind the rock.
For
people to pay the true cost of their behaviour - absolutely - ideally with at
least partial historic responsibility (otherwise we do injustice to younger
people and all those who did not take so much advantage of the insanity -they
are the people who have been robbed in any future they
have).
But
only a solution with all necessary components even offers the slightest of
collective chances, a few silver bullets are inadequate - even if
adopted.
While
SRM geoengineering could potentially help buy a little more time (which could
make a critical difference given how little time may remain) I think it must be
seen in a much wider context. Otherwise it is like a borrower turning to payday
loans to make it through another month. It does only harm if only used to
postpone failure and I would favour faster collapse to do less ultimate damage
in that scenario.
Accordingly,
my argument is that it is a worthwhile activity to devote at least some effort
and thought to mitigating collapse in a failure scenario - to improve the lot of
our species into the indefinite future beyond the dismal projections that appear
probable currently. So few people seem to be considering this contingency
planning question. The closest I suppose are transition groups - though they are
less of a contingency approach and more one that intrinsically assumes upon all
the other components of the necessary minimum solution (I would place their
aspirations on 5 of my list - still a necessary component of a minimum
collective solution).
Regards,
Douglas
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Aaron Franklin
Sent: 23 April 2013
18:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject:
Re: Mega-tsunami in N Atlantic and denial of
life-threats
absolutely right about the trees
taking too long. also the problem is there is not enough land for an effect in a
useful time.
This is not a problem with ocean
fert, and since there was 50x more ocean fert due to natural windblown dust in
glacial periods, and we have halved the natural ocean fert with our human
intervention in the last century, there is no legitimate ecological objections
to doing it.
see my integrated systems plan for
CO2 back to 280ppm in 10 years, linked earlier, for a plan that involves
biofuels, ocean restoration, and reforestation, feeding the starving, all
enhancing each other.
Aaron
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:18 AM,
Kevin Coleman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Slight snag with that idea. There
is a time lag between what is released from the fossil fuel in terms of
polluting carbon compounds and what is effective in mopping it all up again. A
tree for instance is not capable of absorbing the co2 in any meaningful quantity
until it reaches at least 30 years old and even older depending on the
particular type of tree it is. Doesn't matter how much money you throw at a tree
it isn't going to grow any quicker.
The very best bet is to stop taking down
forests, plant more forests, start leaving the fossil fuels in the ground
altogether and start reducing our dependence on trinkets that need conflict
minerals and electricity from the mains supply. Also add to that localisation of
industry and services, decentralisation of food supplies and resource provisions
and stop commuting everywhere. Also if stuff needs to be imported then ship it
using sailing vessels. If it reduces the quantity then the scarcity of the
commodity will make the price reflect the cost of importation and therefore make
it worthwhile using sailing vessels.
Trouble with modern society is that it
is unwilling to change its bad habits. The bad habits are now seen as a right
rather than as something to be earned or justified, other than in some sort of
street cred competition with their peers. Until society changes its attitude
there will be no improvement in the climate situation. Demand perpetuates supply
and the fat cats get fatter as a result.
Kev C
On 23/04/2013 22:19, John
Nissen wrote:
Hi all,
I fundamentally
agree with Aaron. If people paid the full cost of repairing the damage
caused by their pollution (and other sapping of environmental capital), plus a
certain percentage extra, then we would have a chance to neutralise the damage
and start to restore the planet. The best way to raise the levy
would be at the point of fossil fuel extraction, because one would not need any
further levy down the supply chain. This could be also applied to logging
or other deforestation - pay at the point of extraction of the carbon, with a
rebate for restoring the forest that's been cut
down.
Cheers,
John
--
On 23/04/2013 20:45, Aaron
Franklin wrote:
And IMO, telling the fossil
addicts that have the reigns of the planet that its OK to burn the stuff a
little longer, as long as you help us mop up your poo's, isn't a bad Idea.
--
"Vision without action is a
daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare." Japanese
Proverb