Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Sheilbh]

One interesting point on Green New Deal and that rhetorical point.

Labour are campaigning on igniting a Green Industrial Revolution - which is more resonant in the UK than the New Deal.

[crazy canuck]

Alberta 

Harper did support investment in carbon capture and R&D on the subject for Saskatchewan, I think...
Environmentalists were against it, of course.  But that was expected.  If we wait on them to solve the problem, we'll long be underwater.

I've read Mexico city has artificial trees that absorbs CO2.  Don't know what it does with it though, I can not remember if it converted it in oxygen like a real tree, but 24/24, or if it was subterean capture or something else.

Not sure what research on carbon capture has to do with the graph that was shown.

fyi Manning advocated for carbon taxes. 

Ah, I thought you were reacting to the carbon capture post. Sorry.

It was in response to the graphic that showed Alberta has the strongest concentration of climate change deniers.

[Malthus]

One interesting point on Green New Deal and that rhetorical point.

Labour are campaigning on igniting a Green Industrial Revolution - which is more resonant in the UK than the New Deal.

It makes a great deal more sense.

"New Deal" has overtones of 'make-work for the sake of paying people who would otherwise be unemployed', as that is mainly what people remember that era for. This creates the unfortunate impression that green proposals are basically 'make-work'. Which is far from the truth.

[Sheilbh]

It makes a great deal more sense.

"New Deal" has overtones of 'make-work for the sake of paying people who would otherwise be unemployed', as that is mainly what people remember that era for. This creates the unfortunate impression that green proposals are basically 'make-work'. Which is far from the truth.

Yeah - I think "Moon-Shot" would be better for the US.

[Malthus]

It makes a great deal more sense.

"New Deal" has overtones of 'make-work for the sake of paying people who would otherwise be unemployed', as that is mainly what people remember that era for. This creates the unfortunate impression that green proposals are basically 'make-work'. Which is far from the truth.

Yeah - I think "Moon-Shot" would be better for the US.

Indeed, the whole rhetoric around the moon mission (well, minus the Cold War proxy fight with the Soviets  ) would make an excellent analogy.

We are doing this for all humanity.

We are doing this, not because it is easy, but because it is hard and because it is necessary.

In doing this, we are demonstrating world leadership. The whole world will get behind this.

This may be expensive, but by doing this we will advance science and industry, benefitting ourselves as well as the whole world.

[viper37]

Well we can plant cities in deserts now....

Great!  Let's move Toronto and Montreal to desert lands (the land in the arctic circles count as a desert too, no? ), and let's plant trees there instead.  I'm sure all these nature loving people will agree to a slight disturbance in their living patterns

[Valmy]

Well we can plant cities in deserts now....

Great!  Let's move Toronto and Montreal to desert lands (the land in the arctic circles count as a desert too, no? ), and let's plant trees there instead.  I'm sure all these nature loving people will agree to a slight disturbance in their living patterns

Well I see Phoenix, Arizona and Las Vegas Nevada and it is clear one can just build a giant city of millions of people in the middle of a desert if you want.

[viper37]

Well I see Phoenix, Arizona and Las Vegas Nevada and it is clear one can just build a giant city of millions of people in the middle of a desert if you want.

Samarkand might have been first at the whole desert city thing.  You Americans, always copying others and claiming it as your own achievement!    

( just kidding )

[Syt]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/world-fossil-fuel-production-rise-guarantees-missing-paris-climate-goals/

Dangerous levels of warming locked in by planned jump in fossil fuels output

Plans by the world's biggest oil, gas, and coal producers to vastly increase their output guarantees those countries will miss their stated Paris climate goals.

Global governments plan to produce 120 percent more fossil fuels by 2030, drastically at odds with the 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) warming limit they all agreed to under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. All major fossil fuel-producing nations—including the United States, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, Canada, and Australia—have ambitious plans to increase production, according to a new report by leading research organizations and the United Nations.

Carbon emissions from fossil fuel use totaled 37.1 billion tonnes in 2018, a new record. Substantially reducing those emissions will never happen without reducing fossil fuel production, says Michael Lazarus, a lead author of "The Production Gap Report" and the director of Stockholm Environment Institute's U.S. Center.

Using publicly-available government documents, the report found that countries' plans to increase production of coal, oil, and gas amounts to 120 percent more in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global warming to 2.7 degrees F. Those plans include producing 280 percent more coal. That puts the world on a path to more than 7.2 degrees F (4 degrees C) of warming, says Lazarus.

"This report shows, for the first time, just how big the disconnect is between Paris temperature goals and countries' plans and policies for coal, oil, and gas production," Lazarus says. "Even countries claiming to be climate leaders like Canada and Norway say they want to maximize their fossil fuel exports," he said in an interview.

Such a rise in global temperatures would hasten the melting of Earth's ice sheets, raising sea levels; increase the number of big storms and the amount of rain they dump; force the migration of animals to new habitats as their homes heat up; and heighten the danger of infectious diseases to humans, among other effects.

In the report, UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen says it introduces "the fossil fuel production gap, a new metric that clearly shows the gap between increasing fossil fuel production and the decline needed to limit global warming."

"Consider me shocked, but not surprised" by the report, says energy economist Gernot Wagner at New York University. If the world uses even 20 percent more fossil fuels in 2030 than today it is "bound to create massive systemic risks," says Gernot, who was not involved in the report.

"The incentives around fossil fuel extraction are all screwed up. Globally, we are still subsidizing fossil fuel use to the tune of half a trillion dollars per year," he writes in an email.

Investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure today "locks in" fossil fuel production. If it continues as planned countries will end up producing between 40 and 50 percent more oil and gas by 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C). In a landmark report last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that 2 degrees C of warming would have enormous impacts and costs on the environment.

"For the first time the UN has presented the crystal clear science: we must stop the expansion of the fossil-fuel industry immediately," said May Boeve, Executive Director, 350.org, an environmental organization.

Governments are key

Of the 27 fossil fuel-producing countries, the top nine account for over two-thirds of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions, the report says. The U.S. currently produces more oil and gas than any other country, and is the second largest producer of coal. Oil and gas production will increase to 30 percent above current levels by 2030 predicts the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The U.S. has begun the process of withdrawing from the Paris agreement.

Governments issue the extraction permits and provide production and consumption subsidies, so they'll have to take the lead on phasing down fossil fuel production, says Stephen Kretzmann of Oil Change International, a U.S. non-profit research organization focused on the costs of fossil fuels.

Yesterday, California, the sixth largest oil producing state, announced a comprehensive action to phase out California's oil and gas production, Kretzmann says. "That's what real climate leadership looks like."

Gov. Gavin Newsom has stopped approval of new hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas in the state pending reviews by an independent panel of scientists. This was a step toward the phase-out of "our dependence on fossil fuels and focus on clean energy sources," Newsom said in a statement.

Countries have numerous options for closing the production gap, including limiting exploration and extraction, removing subsidies, and aligning future production plans with climate goals. The report details these domestic policy options by governments that can restrain—or at least not subsidize—the supply of fossil fuels, says Steve Davis, a climate researcher at the University of California, Davis, a contributor to the report.

Phasing down fossil fuel production needs to be done in ways that ensures those affected by social and economic change are not left behind, the report concludes. Germany, one of the world's largest coal producers, will phase out coal power plants entirely by 2038, as well as lignite coal mining. It has set aside $47 billion in government support to compensate those affected.

"Despite more than two decades of climate policy-making, fossil fuel production levels are higher than ever," says Stockholm Environment Institute's Executive Director, Måns Nilsson. "This report shows that governments' continued support for coal, oil, and gas extraction is a big part of the problem. We're in a deep hole—and we need to stop digging."

[dps]

It makes a great deal more sense.

"New Deal" has overtones of 'make-work for the sake of paying people who would otherwise be unemployed', as that is mainly what people remember that era for. This creates the unfortunate impression that green proposals are basically 'make-work'. Which is far from the truth.

Yeah - I think "Moon-Shot" would be better for the US.

"The War on Climate".

[Valmy]

"The War on Climate".

Oh dear God

[Eddie Teach]

The Sino-American Alliance is unstoppable! 

[Valmy]

The Sino-American Alliance is unstoppable! 

Mono impression?

[Eddie Teach]

Mono doesn't get to own that smilie.

[Valmy]

Mono doesn't get to own that smilie.

It is just the whole composition of the post:

"Despicable shit happened "