U.N. says only a 'quantum leap' can keep global climate goals within reach
Source: Washington Post
U.N. says only a quantum leap can keep global climate goals within reach
The report comes as nations will need to update their pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a time when the world is on course to blow past all targets for limiting warming.
By Chico Harlan
October 24, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. EDT
If theres any way that countries might avert planetary catastrophe, they havent yet laid out the details explaining how.
But nations will need to update their pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions next year, detailing the steps they will take over the coming decade. And a United Nations report released Thursday said that nothing short of a quantum leap in ambition will suffice at a time when the world is on course to blow past all targets for limiting warming.
Thats the core message of this years U.N. Emissions Gap report a definitive, annual assessment of the planets trajectory which tries to take stock of both the planets future warming given policies in place, and the additional steps that would be necessary to meet climate goals. This years report reads like a pep talk for world leaders and policymakers whove made a tough task vanishingly more difficult by allowing greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise; by so far setting national goals that are insufficient; and by not fulfilling even those pledges.
Another year passing with no action means were worse off, said Anne Olhoff, the reports chief scientific editor.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/10/24/global-warming-countries-un/
https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024
Moostache
(10,114 posts)Humanity and its greed and ability to allow itself to believe the insane and refute the rational has signed a collective death sentence on life form's bigger than a toaster oven by 2150 or sooner, depending on how resilient mankind's sane minority is and how many feedback loops interact and amplify each other.
We have had decades to act and spent them all refuting stupidity, pretending that insane greed was equal to cold hard fact. We allowed people to pretend that what was clearly happening was actually happening slower than it was, or that it was not real or that if it were real there is no solution anyway, so live out your days and fuck the future.
Well, we're about ready to have our collective ass kicked by the bill. Time's up, Accounts must be settled. Billions - with a "B" - are going to die in the resource wars and privation on the horizon... and into this dangerous soup, MILLIONS of Americans are seriously going to suggest with their votes that it would be a good idea to reinstall a hateful, ignorant moron...a bigoted fool obsessed with himself and no one else... a racist, misogynistic, bombastic clown back at the wheel as the car skids and enters an unrecoverable spin.
To say I have little hope is kind.
Redleg
(6,074 posts)instead of spending all their time campaigning for Trump, ruining Twitter, and trying to go to Mars. I am only half joking. It seems to me that the so-called free market should have encouraged firms to work on real solutions to this problem but I forgot that many of the advances in science and technology were fueled by government funded research.
The oil companies, knowing for many years that fossil fuels, a limited resource, would be harder and more costly to exploit, and also being aware of the impact of fossil fuel combustion on the environment and climate, were uniquely positioned to divert some of their ample resources to the development of sustainable energy but mainly failed to do so.
callous taoboy
(4,662 posts)Why, why cant this soon-to-be trillionaire be one of the good guys?
Redleg
(6,074 posts)I know that some of them engage in philanthropic activities after they have made their billions, but wonder how many of them were "good guys" from the start.
OKIsItJustMe
(20,309 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 24, 2024, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)
https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/who-gives-most-to-charity/(Mind you, thats as percentage of income, not of disposable income. The income of the rich is almost all disposable income. While almost none of the income of the poor is disposable.)
I hold back from laughing when I hear about some impossibly rich person who has promised to give 90% of their fortune away to charity when they die. Even if they give away 90% of their fortune while theyre alive, that still leaves them with 10% of an incomprehensible fortune. Imagine if Laurene Powell Jobs (Steve Jobs widow) had to get by on a mere $157,000,000/year!
Ben & Jerrys once had a truly progressive salary policy. The CEO could make at most, 5 times his lowest paid worker. When Ben retired, they couldnt find a new CEO who would be willing to work for such paltry wages, so the policy was changed.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/occupy-wall-street-why-ben-jerrys-endorsement-rings-hollow/
However, even now, how many companies have a similar attitude toward their employees?
Redleg
(6,074 posts)It is true that on average, the wealthy give less to charity than middle and lower income earners. They also feel more entitled to free stuff, even though they could afford to pay.
Many of them would rather see the social safety net and Social Security fail than to pay a bit more in taxes.
To answer your question- very few companies have executive compensation policies similar to the old Ben & Jerry's. Hell, many CEOs even get huge golden parachutes when they get fired for doing a lousy job.
OKIsItJustMe
(20,309 posts)ELON MUSK: I want to say something about, like, you know, maybe my views on climate change and oil and gas, because I think its probably different from what most people would assume, because my views are actually pretty, I think, moderate in this regard, which is that I dont think we should vilify the oil and gas industry and the people that have worked very hard in those industries to provide the necessary energy to support the economy. And if we were to stop using oil and gas right now, we would all be starving and the economy would collapse.
So its you know, I dont think its right to sort of vilify the oil and gas industry. And the world has a certain demand for oil and gas, and its probably better if the United States provides that than some other countries. And it would help with prosperity in the US. And at the same time, obviously, my view is, is like, we do over time want to move to a sustainable energy economy, because eventually you do run out of I mean, you run out of oil and gas.
Climate Change Concerns
ELON MUSK: Its not there. Its not infinite. And there is some risk. I think its not the risk is not as as high as, you know, a lot of people say it is with respect to global warming.
But I think if you just keep increasing the cost of a million in the atmosphere long enough, eventually, it actually simply gets uncomfortable to breathe, people dont realize this. If you go, if you go past 1000 parts per million of CO2, you start getting headaches and nausea. And so were now in the sort of 400 range, were adding, I think, about roughly two parts per million per year. So I mean, still gives us what it means, like, we still have quite a bit of time.
Redleg
(6,074 posts)I thought Elon sold himself and Tesla as a company that cared about making sustainable cars for the average income person. Was he just being cynical? That's a rhetorical question. He also sold himself as a defender of free speech and we know what he has done with Twitter.
OKIsItJustMe
(20,309 posts)He apparently believes that fossil fuels will run out.
Go back a decade or so and there were essentially 3 mass market EVs, each dealing with the high cost of batteries in a different way:
- The Nissan LEAF: It had an affordable price, with a relatively short range, good enough for the vast majority day-to-day driving.
- The Chevy Volt: It too had a relatively small battery, with a good-enough range, but added a range extender (a gasoline engine which would kick in when the battery got too low.) Naturally the range extender added to the price, and GM lost money on every one they sold.
- The Tesla Model S: It had a much larger battery pack, giving it much greater range, and a much higher price, to justify that, high-end features were added, definitely not for average income person. When people complained about the price, Tesla fans would compare it to other high-priced cars.
My assumption for some time was that Elons great desire to go to Mars was because he had run the numbers on the climate, and decided Earth was doomed, so, naturally he wanted to escape" to Mars. Heres a question I ask people, Elon really wants to go to Mars, right⁉️ OK, so, unlike the other space billionaires, Elon has a rocket which (almost routinely) carries passengers into Low Earth Orbit. Even to the Space Station. Right? So, if hes so hot on space travel, why hasn't he (unlike the others) taken a ride on his own rocket? Apparently, hes not keen on space travel, hes specifically keen on going to Mars.
Since realizing that he does not understand the urgency of fighting Climate Change I decided he must have a different motivation. We have observed that he does not feel that he should be bound by laws, anyones laws. Whether its following the Lockdowns during the worst of COVID-19, environmental regulations, FAA regulations, labor laws
He didnt like that Twitter blocked his lies. So, he bought Twitter (a horrible business decision) but, now hes king of Twitter, and can make his own rules.
So, now, I have come to believe he wants to become King of Mars where he can treat his serfs however he pleases, not bound by Earths laws.
Redleg
(6,074 posts)and how dare we serfs question his intentions, actions, or right-to-rule. This is the most troubling aspect of Musk and some of the other ultra-wealthy self-proclaimed libertarians. They really are authoritarians at heart, hearkening back to an imagined time when kings ruled as they wished and all institutions and people served the king rather than the other way around. They see themselves as supremely gifted and therefore most deserving of kingship. Hell, one of these clowns (I forget his name) has advocated for an American Caesar. That is some scary stuff.
masmdu
(2,556 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(20,309 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(20,309 posts)At this point, climate scientists agree that we need Carbon Capture, but that is in addition to drastic cuts in emissions (not instead of them.)
The "average american (per capita) is currently responsible for 14 tons of CO₂/year.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-annual-greenhouse-gas-index
BY REBECCA LINDSEY REVIEWED BY STEPHEN MONTZKA AND JAMES BUTLER
PUBLISHED JUNE 17, 2022
Among the most basic questions about global warming is how much are human-produced greenhouse gases influencing the climate today compared to the past? To answer this question, NOAA developed the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index ("AGGI" for short). Updated yearly, the AGGI calculates the combined warming influence of the most important long-lived greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous dioxide, and a number of industrial chemicals used in cooling and refrigeration, aerosol sprays, and other processes. The total direct heating influence in a given year is compared to conditions in 1990the year that countries who signed the U.N. Kyoto Protocol agreed to use as a benchmark for their efforts to reduce emissions.
By the end of 2022, NOAA reported that the AGGI was 1.49, meaning the direct warming influence of human-produced greenhouse gases had risen 49 percent since 1990. Most of the warming influence (64 percent) is due to carbon dioxide. Methane is the second-largest contributor (19 percent). The third-largest contributor is the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) category (8.1 percent). (CFCs were widely used in cooling systems and aerosol sprays in the mid-1900s, before we realized they damaged the ozone layer. These substances and their replacements are now regulated under the Montreal Protocol, but they are extremely long-lived in the atmosphere, so they continue to play a role in Earth's heating imbalance.)
This graph shows the heating influence caused by the major human-produced greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (gray), methane (dark purple), nitrous oxide (medium purple), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, lavender), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs, blue), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs, light blue). Relative to conditions in 1750, today's atmosphere absorbs more than 3 extra watts of energy per square meter of Earth's surface. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from NOAA Global Monitoring Lab. For the complete list of chemicals in the CFC, HFC, and HCFC groups, see Figure 3 in the Full AGGI Report.Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from NOAA ESRL.
To put things into perspective, in 1988, James Hansen warned Congress that Global Warming was now a scientific certainty. Since that time, the rate of global heating has increased by half. It will not decrease even if we end all emissions tomorrow. That heating is due to the gases already in the atmosphere.