Fires of History
20th July 2002, 22:05
Waiting to fight climate change is not a viable option-
By David Suzuki
Scientists and environmental groups often paint grim pictures of a world with a substantially altered climate.
In this scenario, rising sea levels inundate agricultural land and low-lying areas, creating millions of climate refugees. Many species are unable to adapt to rapid warming, causing extinction and loss of biodiversity. Air pollution becomes much worse, and water becomes scarce in many regions.
It's not a pretty picture.
But the fact is, even if we start reducing our emissions today, we can't stop global warming in its tracks because the warming has already begun. It will take centuries before some effects, such as sea level rise, stop entirely. This leads to a common complaint some critics raise against the Kyoto Protocol, the only international framework set up to reduce the emissions that cause climate change. Alone, it will do little to curb the problem, so what's the point?
The point is that the immediate goal is not to completely stop or reverse climate change. That may prove impossible. Instead, the goal, according to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels to "avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate — a phrase that's hard to say and even harder to define. Dangerous according to whom?
Two scientists explore this question in a recent edition of the journal Science. The researchers, from Brown and Princeton universities, define "dangerous" as either warming that puts unique and valuable ecosystems at risk or warming that risks "large-scale discontinuities in the climate system" — in other words, warming that severely disrupts our current environment.
The authors look at coral reefs as a good example of a valuable ecosystem under serious threat from climate change. These reefs are extremely important for tourism, fishing, and the incredible life diversity they house. But these ecosystems also exist in a precarious balance, close to their "upper thermal limits." This means that any increases in water temperature can be fatal, as has been seen during recent El Niño events that caused widespread coral bleaching and death.
Over the past 100 years humans have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas, in our atmosphere by about 30 percent, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 365 ppm. This increase has pushed up global temperatures, which will continue to rise unless emissions are stabilized and reduced.
Looking at coral reefs, the authors say that preventing severe damage will require a long-term target of temperatures no more than 1 degree C above 1990 levels. According to the authors, a realistic goal in terms of carbon dioxide concentration is 450 ppm, which will still result in temperature increases of between 1.2 and 2.3 degrees C over the next 100 years.
Although this goal will not fully protect reefs and other ecosystems, the authors point out that it may prevent whole-scale disruption of the climate system, which could result from the disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (this alone would raise sea levels by an astonishing four to six meters) or the shut-down of density-driven ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream.
How does Kyoto fit into all of this? Well, the authors look at the chances of meeting a 450 ppm target using both the Kyoto emission reduction scenario and a delayed scenario, where we wait until better technologies are available to reduce emissions faster later on. They conclude that waiting a decade before starting to make significant reductions will make it very difficult and prohibitively costly to reach a 450 ppm target. In contrast, "the scenario consistent with the Kyoto targets in 2010 requires challenging but substantially lower reduction rates."
Kyoto, it seems, is more than just one choice in an array of possibilities to "prevent dangerous anthropogentic interference" with our climate. Given the length of time it takes to create these complex international treaties and the speed with which emissions continue to increase, it is actually our only realistic option.
From Environmental News Network (http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2002/07/07022002/s_47610.asp)
__________________________________________
And thus why I'm as 'Green' as I am anything else. The writing's on the wall as it were, but everyone seem to have their eyes closed and fingers in their ears. What people don't realize is that what we see happening today is what has been predicted for decades. People seem to be waiting for something to finally happen before we believe all this environmental 'mumbo-jumbo' -- well guess what, it is! Today! Now!
Environmental scientists aren't talking about what will happen, they are describing what is happening. And for some reason most people don't understand that simple fact. All these 'mumbo-jumbo-leftist-junk-science-prophecies,' promised to come true for decades, are finally happening. What more proof do people need?
So, whatever you are, don't be bored! There's plenty to do. Why care at all about a better society if by the time we achieve it we can't even grow wheat?
People are so concerned about getting a job, starting a family...while forgetting about making sure that their descendents can even breathe.
Yeah, why the hate? I can't tell, not at all....
(Edited by Fires of History at 10:09 pm on July 20, 2002)
By David Suzuki
Scientists and environmental groups often paint grim pictures of a world with a substantially altered climate.
In this scenario, rising sea levels inundate agricultural land and low-lying areas, creating millions of climate refugees. Many species are unable to adapt to rapid warming, causing extinction and loss of biodiversity. Air pollution becomes much worse, and water becomes scarce in many regions.
It's not a pretty picture.
But the fact is, even if we start reducing our emissions today, we can't stop global warming in its tracks because the warming has already begun. It will take centuries before some effects, such as sea level rise, stop entirely. This leads to a common complaint some critics raise against the Kyoto Protocol, the only international framework set up to reduce the emissions that cause climate change. Alone, it will do little to curb the problem, so what's the point?
The point is that the immediate goal is not to completely stop or reverse climate change. That may prove impossible. Instead, the goal, according to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels to "avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate — a phrase that's hard to say and even harder to define. Dangerous according to whom?
Two scientists explore this question in a recent edition of the journal Science. The researchers, from Brown and Princeton universities, define "dangerous" as either warming that puts unique and valuable ecosystems at risk or warming that risks "large-scale discontinuities in the climate system" — in other words, warming that severely disrupts our current environment.
The authors look at coral reefs as a good example of a valuable ecosystem under serious threat from climate change. These reefs are extremely important for tourism, fishing, and the incredible life diversity they house. But these ecosystems also exist in a precarious balance, close to their "upper thermal limits." This means that any increases in water temperature can be fatal, as has been seen during recent El Niño events that caused widespread coral bleaching and death.
Over the past 100 years humans have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas, in our atmosphere by about 30 percent, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 365 ppm. This increase has pushed up global temperatures, which will continue to rise unless emissions are stabilized and reduced.
Looking at coral reefs, the authors say that preventing severe damage will require a long-term target of temperatures no more than 1 degree C above 1990 levels. According to the authors, a realistic goal in terms of carbon dioxide concentration is 450 ppm, which will still result in temperature increases of between 1.2 and 2.3 degrees C over the next 100 years.
Although this goal will not fully protect reefs and other ecosystems, the authors point out that it may prevent whole-scale disruption of the climate system, which could result from the disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (this alone would raise sea levels by an astonishing four to six meters) or the shut-down of density-driven ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream.
How does Kyoto fit into all of this? Well, the authors look at the chances of meeting a 450 ppm target using both the Kyoto emission reduction scenario and a delayed scenario, where we wait until better technologies are available to reduce emissions faster later on. They conclude that waiting a decade before starting to make significant reductions will make it very difficult and prohibitively costly to reach a 450 ppm target. In contrast, "the scenario consistent with the Kyoto targets in 2010 requires challenging but substantially lower reduction rates."
Kyoto, it seems, is more than just one choice in an array of possibilities to "prevent dangerous anthropogentic interference" with our climate. Given the length of time it takes to create these complex international treaties and the speed with which emissions continue to increase, it is actually our only realistic option.
From Environmental News Network (http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2002/07/07022002/s_47610.asp)
__________________________________________
And thus why I'm as 'Green' as I am anything else. The writing's on the wall as it were, but everyone seem to have their eyes closed and fingers in their ears. What people don't realize is that what we see happening today is what has been predicted for decades. People seem to be waiting for something to finally happen before we believe all this environmental 'mumbo-jumbo' -- well guess what, it is! Today! Now!
Environmental scientists aren't talking about what will happen, they are describing what is happening. And for some reason most people don't understand that simple fact. All these 'mumbo-jumbo-leftist-junk-science-prophecies,' promised to come true for decades, are finally happening. What more proof do people need?
So, whatever you are, don't be bored! There's plenty to do. Why care at all about a better society if by the time we achieve it we can't even grow wheat?
People are so concerned about getting a job, starting a family...while forgetting about making sure that their descendents can even breathe.
Yeah, why the hate? I can't tell, not at all....
(Edited by Fires of History at 10:09 pm on July 20, 2002)