Today, with a number of our partner organizations in the US and Canada, we’re unveiling the Climate Test. This is a proposal being delivered jointly to President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau calling on them to align their governments’ energy policy and decision-making with the demands climate science has laid out for us and the international climate agreements our leaders have forged.
2050 - is a long way away and far too soon at the same time. Maybe to the fossil fuel based economy it seems too soon but if we don't manage to get a handle on adding carbon to our environment by 2030 ... We will seriously regret the level of misery that we will have allowed to happen.
It may be hard on wealthy investors in the fossil fuel universe and I'm sure the Saudis will feel like they are being treated unfairly (lol) but we still can't see the writing on the wall or rather the weather outside the window!
Anyone notice that this was the winter that wasn't? There is a sense that somehow it will go back to a more normal weather pattern next year. We still can't believe that it may continue to worsen year by year from now on.
Year by year until 2050? Double plus ungood yikes!
It is only 2016 but by 2025 people will be screaming at how come nobody told them that things would be that bad! A decade of it getting worse every year and then 2050 won't seem all that far away.
Some folks (deniers/skeptics) will say that I don't know what will come in the next decade. Oh really? Maybe those skeptics can tell me just where will have all this extra warmth have gone in those ten years? The added warmth that is upon us... Is not going away. Plus we are continuing to add carbon and methane etc.
Where does all this extra heat go? It doesn't ...it stays and stays... 2050 is too far away to let things get that much worse.
2030 (twenty years less of adding carbon) should be the target. People want to be reasonable... Lol ... Okay but in ten more years they won't feel that way.
Heat baby. Heat.
The greed of oil destroys our world and we will have to live in the ruins of what will remain.
What if it continues to worsen year by year from now on given the amount of warming that has already been added and isn't going away?
The fossil fuel people suggest 2050 ... environmentalists say that is too long to wait.
Two year by year schedules.
One is how much money can be made year by year that getting off fossil fuels is delayed?
The other is how much added carbon (warming) will continue to be added year by year while some people get to make a lot of money?
First question on the Climate Test: Will you support or reject the TIPP?
Second question on the Climate Test: Will you support or reject the TPP?
Third question on the Climate Test: Will you support deep sea oil drilling?
I think I am offended. Do you think as a reader I believe this horse shit. This from your introductory summery...."informed by the spirit of global cooperation that made Paris successful."
James Hansen described the Paris accords as "non sense" and "bullshit". Bill McKibbon said if the Paris accords came to be we would have an uninhabitable planet. That assumes we are also dead.
This is not a test. There is a switch. It turns on and it turns off. That switch is Co2 and methane emissions. Your job, if you except it, is to turn the switch off. Not a little bit. Not some for these people but not those, but off. None, zip, zero. Or quicker than death in a video game you and your stuff along with your family will be someone else lunch.
I too am alarmed by the lack of alarm regarding the pace of climate change already afoot on this precious planet.
One of the most alarming changes already being witnessed by those with eyes to see, like you and me (I'm a poetic chicken) is the abrupt changes in the jet streams that are creating extremes in weather. The jet streams have slowed because of the changing gradient of temperatures between the equatorial latitudes and the arctic, and thus their meandering in what could be argued an unprecedented fashion. Thus, both high and low pressure systems get "stuck" producing extremes in weather i.e., intense rainfall, temperature much above or below average, and the rest.
To ponder your second closing question is alarming indeed. Particularly in light of the article published today on CD about closed door assurances giving to Big Oil, in particular regarding the expected impact on the Global South opening of markets as an ongoing influence of a fully implemented TTIP.
Great post Wereflea.
Great graphics editing on the climate test website. The actual climate test is a little mushy for me; too many words like essential, must and should.
"...The science behind limiting warming to 2?C is clear. The vast majority of proven fossil fuel reserves must be kept in the ground and we must decarbonize our economies no later than 2050 "....
The science behind limiting warming to 2?C is clear alright - to have a remote hope of limiting warming to 2C we must stop burning all fossil fuels immediately!
We already have warming of 0.8C - the current 400ppm Co2 in the atmosphere and Earths 50+ year thermal inertia ensures there is another degree or two already locked in.
"For 1.5?C we must go even further, faster"... 1.5C degrees is a fantasy - it is not achievable by any measure or action available.
To achieve such 1.5C we must employ methods to draw existing Co2 from the atmosphere on a massive scale - and store that Co2 for thousands of years using carbon capture and storage technology (CCS).
The technology for efficiently drawing Co2 from the atmosphere on sufficiently large scale does not yet exist, CCS technology is also in its infancy, its efficiency and scale may never prove viable; while high stability long term storage sites have not yet been identified or devised.
The Paris agreed targets of 1.5C, or 2C both depend on implementing 'negative emissions' technology - application of CCS on a scale unavailable with current or foreseeable technology. (Prof Kevin Anderson)
It's the KISS principle. We know we must stop using fossil fuels. The only force that can possibly cope with this is the market. Hence make fossil fuels more expensive, relative to clean methods of energy production. A direct tax on carbon would also eliminate the need for subsidies for clean energy production (simplifying government) and bring chemical and thermodynamics efficiencies into play as we move into a clean energy infrastructure.
Currently Senator Sanders is the only candidate advocating a direct tax on carbon. It should become one of the primary questions this election season to define a candidate's actual commitment to action on global warming.