This is more evidence that climate change is far outpacing government action to deal with the problem. Governments sees to be at least 30 years behind where they should be. It is hard enough to get the government of a single country to act quickly on most things but when global cooperation is needed from almost 200 countries rapid action borders an impossibility. It would be hard even if all countries were at the same stage of development but the situation is far different with various countries at different stages of development with the countries behind wanted to catch up to the countries ahead. Staying under 2C seems nearly hopeless at this point. Even staying under 4C would seem to be extremely challenging given all the obstacles to sufficient action.
With Trump pushing "clean" coal,
And Clinton pushing methane-spewing Fracking,
And Gary Johnson pushing laissez-faire,
It looks like our only hope for the planet is Jill Stein
Perhaps you should read the article again. "the real elephant in the room is carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years and in the oceans for even longer. Without tackling CO2 emissions, we can not tackle climate change and keep temperature increases to below 2°C above the pre-industrial era,"
Fracking of course causes a big pollution problem but burning natural gas produces half as much CO2 emissions as coal. Clinton does say that natural gas is a bridge to the futures and what she means by that is by using natural gas coal burning can be phased out much more quickly than it could otherwise and therefore CO2 emissions can be reduced more quickly. Many people agree with Clinton on this strategy. It is the strategy of the federal government. Of course others disagree with this strategy but both sides are trying to fight climate change.
Clinton is trading one problem for a worse one.
True, natural gas creates less CO2 than coal when it is burned, but she is ignoring the unburned methane at all of our peril.
There is 9 times as much CO2 as methane in the atmosphere, and BOTH are potent greenhouse gases.
But methane is 100 times as potent as CO2 in causing global warming, so it is a huge problem.
Do the math.
Clinton's obsession with promoting Fracking is not a solution, but instead is even a worse problem than burning dirty coal (or even the mythical clean coal).
We need to move to RENEWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE sources and Jill Stein is the only candidate serious about that.
Methane only last on average about 10 years in the atmosphere while carbon dioxide lasts for hundreds and even thousands of years. Therefore, in the long run carbon dioxide emissions are a particularly serious problem. Carbon dioxide emissions also causes acidification of the oceans whereas this is not a concern of methane emissions. Also, the methane emissions from fracking can be controlled. A new law will require this of new wells. In addition burning coal results in serious toxic pollution whereas toxic pollution from burning natural gas is relatively limited. Clinton's approach makes sense. It is the most effective way to reduce coal burning. But in addition to using natural gas to replace coal she also has an ambitious goal of increasing green energy so that electricity can in the near futurre be generated without carbon dioxide emissions. Clinton's plan is more comprehensive and makes more sense than Jill Stein's, whose plan includes a ban a fracking nationwide. This would lead to an immediate increase in coal burning and therefore increased carbon dioxide emissions. Without increased coal burning the US would be faced with rolling blackouts and brownouts because of a lack of electricity. Of course that would be politically unacceptable.
More like 20 years but you are essentially correct.
But a lot can happen in the next critical 20 years.
This is why Hillary Clinton is the worst kind of "climate denier".
She admits that global warming is a problem so it is difficult to argue with her when she proposes to cause havoc with the environment when her actual proposals and support do just that. Hillary's election will lead to complacency while we all slowly roast as the frog's water gets hotter and hotter. Clinton is NOT addressing the problem when she bows to her Fracking supporters.
They have known this for years but it costs money.
And costing money reduces profits.
So little or nothing is done except lip service from the likes of Hillary Clinton.
We need sustainable and renewable resources ten years ago, not fifty years from now.
Contrary to what right-wing Christian climate change deniers in the US appear to believe, it seems that the Bible – and in particular, the Carpenter from Galilee – speaks to climate change. It also seems unlikely that it is going to get better. The "distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves" of Luke 21:25 describes climate change well, with rising sea levels and weather extremes, although he may be referring to tsunamis, or both. Some megacryometeors may be a result of climate change, so it would not be a surprise if they became more frequent (cf. Revelation 16:21). Bloody red algae blooming seas, fire, floods and famines are also mentioned – earthquakes, too. Since big bang cosmology's telling us that space and time(!) had a beginning fits so nicely with Genesis 1:1*, I'm inclined to believe more of the Book, as well, and it says we live in a dying world.
Given the brokenness of people (all of us) and the corruption in and ineptitude of governments – first and third world, it doesn't seem likely that climate change is fixable, even if it were all anthropogenic. And any global financial, geopolitical or geophysical disaster could effectively scrap any political and unenforceable agreements.
But, counterintuitively, perhaps, the most frequent mandate in the Bible is "Don't be afraid" (or one of its several variations, e.g., "Fret not" and "Be anxious for nothing"). That would include not being anxious about climate change and terrorism. Father is in control, like it or not. It would be better to like it. Also counterintuitive, perhaps: he is a loving – and lovable – Father.
*Incidentally (or not), the sequence of 'days' in Genesis 1 is correct, too. www.reasons.org/blogs/take-two/let-there-be-light
'With the new climate records—and "new new math" of climate change—as a backdrop, author and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben said last month, "If we’re going to have a chance of dealing with climate change, it means mobilizing in ways that we haven't in a very long time."' Mobilizing that won't happen, regardless of who's elected, Bill should have added.
Translation: "Our situation is hopeless!"
Dr. David Wasdell wrote this last year (http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Harsh%20Realities.pdf, p. 15): “An increase of 1.5°C was implicit by around 1965. 2°C was implicit by about1978. So 2°C was already in the pipeline towards the end of the 1970s. Today we are under the illusion that reducing our emissions will still keep us under 2°C!”
Why your references to the Bible? See this, for example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html
The "bridge to the future" was burnt decades ago. That's why we have 400ppm CO2.
Do you have an issue with big bang cosmology?