Browse
Engage
Research
Record levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions last year threaten our chances of keeping the Earth's temperature from rising 2 degrees Celsius, considered by scientists to be the threshold for catastrophic climate change.
CO2 emissions from energy production in 2010 were the highest in history following a recessionary dip the year before, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a stark announcement Monday. Existing and planned power plants mean the bulk of energy-related CO2 emissions projected for 2020 are already "locked in."
"This significant increase in CO2 emissions and the locking in of future emissions due to infrastructure investments represent a serious setback to our hopes of limiting the global rise in temperature to no more than 2ºC," Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist, said in a statement.
World leaders have agreed to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius or less above pre-industrial levels to prevent catastrophic climate change, which could include heat waves, rising sea levels, extreme weather and droughts, among other impacts.
We need to keep the concentration of atmospheric GHGs below 450 parts per million in order to achieve this. To put this in perspective, we reached 393 ppm in April. Maintaining an energy pathway to the 450 Scenario would require us to essentially keep emissions levels flat over the next decade.
The IEA noted that developing nations, led by China and India, were responsible for three-quarters of 2010 emissions growth as their economies picked up, a trend likely to continue if their economies continue to grow. In the U.S., figures for GDP growth the first quarter of 2011 made a poor showing compared to the final quarter of 2010. How U.S. performance affects the global economy and emissions levels remains to be seen, but Birol warns the 2010 emissions estimate represents "another wake-up call."
"The world has edged incredibly close to the level of emissions that should not be reached until 2020 if the 2º C target is to be attained," Birol said. "Given the shrinking room for manœuvre in 2020, unless bold and decisive decisions are made very soon, it will be extremely challenging to succeed in achieving this global goal agreed in Cancun."
Image CC licensed by Flickr user woodleywonderworks.
Thank you Mrs. I read
Thank you Mrs. I read favorably this article.
Invest today, for safer tommorrow, invest today in local action...
Climate change dices looks casted according International Energy Agency (IEA)and we will not make it....unless we act or react. These bad news should not freeze good willing people, but instead, help to find new resources to gear up faster and better in designing new solutions, funding more investments,creating new ideas and being more entrepreneurial and proactive, particularly in the phases before amplification phenomenum becomes real, and do not forget the Children Charter....
Please, visit the UNISDR website for more precise details on the Yokohama strategy and the Hyogo Framework Priority for Actions (there are five)and it is a good prospect with all together, good willing people that can.
Why 450 ppm? The target we
Why 450 ppm? The target we need to hit is 350. Anyone who thinks that 450 is "okay," as the IEA seems to do, is living in a dream world. Any responsible entity or person who continues to talk about 450 ppm as a "goal" is misleading the public.
"...to prevent catastrophic
"...to prevent catastrophic climate change, which could include heat waves, rising sea levels, extreme weather and droughts, among other impacts."
This seems misleading. We are already experiencing these climate change-related impacts. Maybe not so much in the U.S. yet, but definitely in places like Asia and Africa. My understanding is that the 2 degree goal is not to prevent, but to mitigate climate change impacts and to avoid a tipping point beyond which the earth's systems shift to new equilibriums (ex. "hot earth scenario"). Please correct me if I am wrong.
It is unfortunate that this,
It is unfortunate that this, and indeed most, articles about global temperature rise mention two numbers in particular: The temperature rise and the GDP. This creates a link in the reader's mind between these two quantities -- one goes up when the other goes down. The natural assumption is, "Less atmospheric CO2 means lower economic growth."
It's a false link. But it is created in our minds again and again by the language we use. I would challenge GreenBiz to begin breaking that link deliberately by using alternate language and including other statistics. For instance, how about linking higher CO2 emissions to greater health problems?
Did you notice the other pic
Did you notice the other pic (huge factory / power plant chimneys)?
They look like cannons, what are they for? Destined to destroy something!