Worldwatch just released its State of the World 2009: Into a Warming World, which finds:
The world will have to reduce emissions more drastically than has been widely predicted, essentially ending the emission of carbon dioxide by 2050 to avoid catastrophic disruption to the world’s climate.
At a kick-off event, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said
“President-elect Obama’s goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 falls short of the response needed by world leaders to meet the challenge of reducing emissions to levels that will actually spare us the worst effects of climate change.”
Told ya! (see “The U.S. needs a tougher 2020 GHG emissions target“)
Pachauri was the guy handpicked by Bush to replace the “alarmist” Bob Watson. But it’s the facts that make scientists alarmists, not their politics, as I’ve said many times (see “Desperate times, desperate scientists“). At the end of 2007, Pachauri famously said:
The Worldwatch report certainly supports that assertion:
A chapter by climate scientist W. L. Hare concludes that in order to avoid a catastrophic climate tipping point, global greenhouse gas emissions will need to peak before 2020 and drop 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, with further reductions beyond that date. Emissions of carbon dioxide would actually need to ‘go negative’–with more being absorbed than emitted-during the second half of this century. Hare’s research finds that even a warming of 2 degrees Celsius poses unacceptable risks to key natural and human systems, including significant loss of species, major reductions in food-production capacity in developing countries, severe water stress for hundreds of millions of people, and significant sea-level rise and coastal flooding.
That is the emissions reduction needed if one wants to have a shot at stabilizing at 400 ppm CO2-eq (or lower), which is a very justifiable, albeit immensely challenging, goal (see “Stabilize at 350 ppm CO2 or risk ice-free planet, warn NASA, Yale, Sheffield, Versailles, Boston et al“).
In the Introduction, Pachauri writes:
The strongest message from State of the World 2009 is this: if the world does not take action early and in adequate measure, the impacts of climate change could prove extremely harmful and overwhelm our capacity to adapt. At the same time, the costs and feasibility of mitigation of GHG emissions are well within our reach and carry a wealth of substantial benefits for many sections of society. Hence, it is essential for the world to look beyond business as usual and stave off the crisis that faces us if we fail to act.
Hear! Hear!
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Given Pachuari’s background in the energy industry, his warning should make his statements bullet proof but it is impossible to embarras the deniers because they will accuse him, Pachauri, of being alarmist even though he was hand picked by Bush to replace that other climate alarmist Bob Watson.
they will accuse him, Pachauri, of being alarmist even though he was hand picked by Bush to replace that other climate alarmist Bob Watson.
Rick C beat me to it.
Denialists: they have nothing. But when did that ever stop them?
Best,
D
Joe:
A couple of months ago you wrote: “I have already heard some enviros attack Obama for “only” going back to 1990 levels by 2020….. In fact, getting back to 1990 levels will require all of the talent, eloquence, and magic PEBO has — and he’ll need the support and hard work of every last one of us.”
I appreciate that your positions evolve and that you have partially addressed the particular evolution in question in “The U.S. needs a tougher 2020 GHG emissions target.” But since your older posts are likely to show up in searches, I wonder if you would consider modifying these older posts with an asterisk or footnote or reference to later posts, at least in those cases where the posts bear on some of the most widely discussed and potentially influential issues.
Thanks.
[JR: No. I don't think modification is needed. Also, the statement remains true, as the recent USCAP announcement makes clear.]
Its taken till now for the planners to start considering peak oil….when will they start considering sea-level rise. In Vancouver they are considering spending billions of our tax money to expand the airport, which is at sea-level.
Daft.
Are we living on the same planet here? No one has reduced anything. China is burning coal like there is no tomorrow. Everyone is desalinating using oil, gas, coal. There will be no reductions, or trivial reductions at astronomical tax payer cost. Either its all nonsense (lots of reasons to think so, just go outside anywhere in the North East today), or cancel Christmas.
OK, James. I live in these United States and I have just gone through 7 days of record warmth.
If you sort through everything, it is clear that we don’t lack knowledge. We lack the political will to put that knowledge to work. It all gets lost in the political equations of counting votes… something that Pelosi is better at than she is at doing what makes sense.
Hoon’s definitely in cloud-cuckoo land:
“In a concession to green groups on Thursday, Hoon promised that the extra runway would not be used if the government’s advisory committee on climate change says in the future that the expansion means carbon emissions from aviation cannot be brought down to 2005 levels by 2050.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/17/geoff-hoon-emma-thompson
ATTN: Dano
Go see my recent post in Voodoo Economists, Part 2.
good to see things will be pushed hard and fast ahead as we elase lose even more ground .. the last 8 years have not been good. i thinkwe can do infinetely better and gain momentum toward dec 09 in Copenhagen.. keep up the good work .. it will be worth it:)
i still don’t understand the discussion. Can we name a single significant decrease in CO2 emissions anywhere – a decrease that is not x10 offset by increasing use in Asia and by desalinization. Who will volunteer to live without electricity or fresh water? Who will not fight to keep their life as is or better? With financial crisis who will stall their economy further with crippling regulations? Either the earth will adjust itself or… it will be bad, “brown” as Borat would say.
Joe:
Please just consider *helping* those readers who might happen upon that earlier post and who might believe that *you* think pointing out that Obama needs to be more ambitious (than targeting 1990 levels by 2020) is a form of “sniping” and “kibitzing.”
Anyone want to explain where the Laurentide ice sheet went? It extended as far south as Kansas and was kilometers thick. No doubt the oceans were hundreds of feet lower than today. No coal plants, no consumtion of oil cause it to melt, yet it’s gone today. Climate change happens, and there is nothing we can do to change it. The rest is a con job.
Bob D. — The Laurentide ice sheet went away along with the other major ice sheets, excepting only GIS and AIS. That took over 10,000 years.
However, we now certainly understand the role of excess carbon dioxide in lifting temperatures drastically. For good reading about this matter, W.F. Ruddiman’s popular “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum” and David Archer’s “The Long Thaw” are recommended.