Home | About | Donate

In Fight Against Global Warming, the World is Way Off Target


#1

In Fight Against Global Warming, the World is Way Off Target

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

In what is being called the most definitive assessment yet of national emissions pledges aimed at meeting global climate goals, the International Energy Agency on Monday released a major report showing that without "learning to live within its means," the world is set to miss a critical target.


#2

..."December's meeting where it is hoped that 196 countries will agree upon new global emissions reductions—found that without stronger action, emissions will continue to rise until at least 2030, putting the 2°C target out of reach. It doesn't have to be this way."

It's guaranteed to be as long as governments continue to define action as half hearted pledges that are never enforced from yet another round of climate talks. Burn, baby, burn.


#3

Perhaps we should allow unlimited fossil fuels extraction anywhere along with no pollution restrictions whatsoever. Then when humanity dies off along with a lot of the other lifeforms, there won't be human induced pollution and the planet can heal itself.

Sounds like a plan.


#4

The frog is at simmer and greed has the dial maxed out. Humanity does not yet have a way of harnessing morality to properly address one of its biggest challenges (thinking nuclear weapons as the alternative).


#5

If you look at the synergistic effect of various "forcings" intensifying -- as they unquestionably have been -- while CO2 (and other emissions) continue to linger in the atmosphere for several centuries, it's clear that a 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperature is already improbable if not outright impossible. IPCC scientists have been very conservative in their predictions -- deliberately -- to avoid seeming alarmist, to enable a solid database to build, to allow for the latent emergence of some possible [unknown] confounding factors while also mitigating world panic and the destabilization of world markets.


#6

It is unfortunate that IEA uses the common misleading terminology. It is really the reduction in the global rate of emissions that is being considered.The concentration level will continue to rise as long as there are emissions not being offset by the absorption in the oceans that is causing acidification. Ironically, the article compounds the misunderstanding by using the term 'renewable energy'. Solar and wind farm systems use weak solar energy to supply some electricity during their limited life times. They are made of irreplaceable materials so may make a small but worthwhile contribution to the demand for electricity. However, they cannot be a worthwhile source of fuel for transportation or of aiding food production.


#7

Who do we have to blame for this fine situation we are in?

BUSH, KROCH, SHIT, PISS, PHUCK!!!!

(sorry, almost lost my cool there for a minute.)


#8

Better....(The dots bring me up to ten characters but now I have to be more descriptive, CD tells me. Okay, CD, REFORM! If I want to tell Thomas_Jefferson that he is doing better, let me! I understand that you have been plagued with trolls, but that doesn't mean you must adopt long poles with feathers on the end of them to wake up any sleeping parishioners.) And so, I say, again to Thomas_Jefferson:

Better.

P.S. Also, CD, I think you've made a bad decision to place big distracting block promotions in the center of your articles. Would you kindly consider withdrawing them or placing them someplace else, ahead of or behind the articles? Perhaps I am a dinosaur but I do believe your articles should be inviolate-- just a personal opinion.


#10

You certainly do KNOW NOTHING. You sound like an educated flat earther. The temperature is going to raise way above 2 degrees Celsius and the particulate matter is above 400 PPM. We are in deep trouble. Your "world panic" is happening in Africa and around the world. America's response to Climate Chaos is to enlarge its military.


#11

Oh my. You completely misread my comment. But in re-reading my comment I certainly could have been clearer. So I'll take responsibility for the miscommunication -- proving once again that I truly know nothing ...

The 2 degree Celsius rise is a gross UNDERSTATEMENT of likely probabilities -- and hence holding global mean temperature rise to only 2 degrees is not only improbable -- it's likely impossible -- for the reasons I described. And I didn't even address the dissolution of CO2 into the oceans where it would then be converted into carbonic acid -- which lowers the ph and creates a more acidic environment for marine life -- and likely alters ocean currents, weather patterns and ice melt. A galactic mess.