A friend of mine was teasing me about climate change the other day. She knows I have very little faith in our ability to extricate ourselves from the current mess, but she pointed out that she’d heard Gore talking on the radio and he seemed to feel we could do it.
I did not hear what Gore had to say. I presume it was similar to what he says in the movie: Buy a Prius, use compact fluorescents, recycle.
I don’t think my friend is aware of the final UN report that came out a month ago. I don’t think the News SurPressed mentioned it.
For a long time the goal has been to insure that global temperatures do not rise more than 2°C. This is a somewhat arbitrary mark on the continuum of temperatures — the idea being that somewhere around this value there will be massive ecosystem (and economic) disruption.
In the final UN report from the IPCC the most optimistic scenario barely achieves this. It would require carbon emissions to peak NOW, and drop by 85% in 2050.
Consider that: Global carbon consumption must cease to grow RIGHT NOW. And over the next 40 years we must reduce our consumption so that we are burning 1/6th of the oil/coal/whatever that we currently burn. (not reduce by 1/6, but reduce to 1/6).
Buying a Prius (and driving the same amount) will mean maybe a 50% reduction in gasoline usage (except that it takes more energy to make a Prius than a normal car, and more energy to dispose of one afterward so the comparison isn’t quite that simple). If you want to reduce your consumption to 1/6, you would need something that was three times as fuel efficient as a Prius – 150mpg.
Buy a bike. Walk. Take the bus.
And we must do that in every aspect of our lives. Heat our houses 6 times as efficiently, transport goods, farm, etc.
So Gore is wrong in saying that buying a Prius will solve the problem. It might be a good start, and many people probably should, but it is nowhere near enough.
In 1997 the Kyoto treaty, was signed (but not by the US) requiring significant reductions in emissions among the developed nations (but not for the developing nations like China or India, a fact which has turned out to be a major flaw).
At the moment the UK and Sweden are the only countries in the EU that appear to be on track for reducing their emissions in line with the treaty. Emissions in the US have increased by 16%, in Canada 27%, in China 47% and in India 55%.
That is using the standards set out in the Kyoto treaty. However those standards exclude emissions in global shipping and air transport. If you include a pro-rated share of those emissions into each country’s share then instead of declining by -14% England’s emissions actually rise by 19%.
Kyoto has failed massively. We are in far worse shape globally than the worst case scenario put forth back in 1997. That was only 10 years ago. As each successive report has come out from the IPCC they have painted a bleaker and bleaker picture. And that reflects the change in less than a year.
We aren’t going to achieve it. There is no way we can reduce global emissions to 1/6 of their current value.
There might be an engineering solution, but there is no political will to reach it.
It’s the tragedy of the commons all over again. When I chid my friend after she bought a gas-guzzling Vanagon, she said that she would reduce her consumption if everyone else did. A safe statement — it’s clear other people won’t. They already haven’t.
She also asked me if she were the enemy now. As Walt Kelly pointed out 30 years ago: We have met the enemy and he is us.
The world population is rising. By 2050 there will be another 3~4 billion of us, so to achieve a global decline to 1/6th, we actually need to reduce our individual consumption to 1/9th.
Global economic output is up. This means consumption is higher, not lower. Consider India and China, their emissions have risen by roughly 50% in the last 10 years — and both are huge countries.
The price of oil is rising as oil reserves are depleted. This means that people will turn to cheaper alternatives (like coal, oil shale, etc.). Unfortunately, these cheap alternatives are almost universally dirtier and produce more carbon, not less.
Biodiesel is touted as a solution. A technology which combines rainforest destruction with rising food prices does not look like a solution to me. The price of flour has doubled at my grocery store in less than a year. There have been food riots all over the world as biodiesel raises the cost of maize directly, wheat and rice in consequence, and meat indirectly.
These reports are available for anyone to read, they are on the web. I am not making this stuff up. They were not produced by raging loony environmentalists, they are the result of scientific debate using the best data currently available. The IPCC was set up by the UN and has taken input from every nation. If anything, I assume the actual situation is worse than painted in the reports because:
- When the first report came out of the IPCC it was clear that both China and the US had watered down its conclusions.
- Experience from the Kyoto protocol suggests that things are worse than people can guess. We just don’t know yet all the ways things can go wrong.
So I believe that Gore paints a far rosier picture that current evidence supports.
Perhaps he does this because if people realized how bad things were they would give up in despair. Every little bit helps. We will almost certainly not achieve the 2°C target, but maybe we can stay within 3°C or 4°C… Perhaps the lemurs will all die and all of Bangladesh be flooded, but maybe the raccoons will survive?
So maybe that’s what he’s thinking.
The American people certainly seem incapable of reading or understanding the data that are out there. You don’t have to look hard for it. It’s right there. Maybe he has to start out with comforting half truths before we are ready to look at the full and inconvenient truth.
) for the plural.
I set these aside to dry overnight. They didn’t dry as much as I had expected, so I put them out in the sun the next day to speed
up the process. Then I joined the top (which was thrown up-side-down) to the base with slip. And added the initial banding using a black slip.
Then I decided, why stop at Greek? So I asked more friends, scattered across the world to translate “I run” into their respective languages:
A few days later I was back at work. I scratched my various versions of “I run” onto the neck (in two groups, one in front, one in back), then traced the outline of my runner onto the body of the piece, and finally coloured in the runner with black slip. Then I carefully removed the amphora from its bat and took it out to the kiln to be bisque fired.