Environment & Energy

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts) Thu Jun 7, 2012, 12:28 PM Jun 2012

A truly horrid graph from the WWF

"In a nutshell, humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren't there," researcher Arne Mooers said in a press release."My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the earth's history are more than pretty worried. In fact, some are terrified."

http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-environment-verge-of-disaster-2012-6

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A truly horrid graph from the WWF (Original Post) GliderGuider Jun 2012 OP

"We'll keep on doing what we do until we can't, then we won't." phantom power Jun 2012 #1

we all should be terrified handmade34 Jun 2012 #2

"It's a hard problem..." GliderGuider Jun 2012 #5

it's awful FirstLight Jun 2012 #3

Very sad. Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #4

The amount of damage we did in a minuscule period of Earth's history is amazing ... Auggie Jun 2012 #7

Very true Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #10

It reminds me of what people who live in tiny, remote towns say GliderGuider Jun 2012 #6

Douglas Adams called it in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" IDemo Jun 2012 #8

It's worth noting that the majority of the increase is in our carbon footprint. GliderGuider Jun 2012 #9

That graph is "Business as usual". We are not following that path. kristopher Jun 2012 #11

We are so far. GliderGuider Jun 2012 #12

That isn't true. kristopher Jun 2012 #14

Perhaps you should tell that to the WWF. GliderGuider Jun 2012 #15

They "think that we're on the BAU path"? kristopher Jun 2012 #16

Read what I say, not what you want me to have said. GliderGuider Jun 2012 #17

CO2 emissions remain, again, at the high end of the scenarios. That's BAU. joshcryer Jun 2012 #21

Yes, and we can build a robot moon factory that makes SBSP. joshcryer Jun 2012 #20

We aren't following BAU. We're EXCEEDING it. NickB79 Jun 2012 #23

I should be dead by 2050 catbyte Jun 2012 #13

It gets like that flamingdem Jun 2012 #22

The silver lining is that the non-carbon footprint isn't increasing much. Odin2005 Jun 2012 #18

Yes, but the rising carbon footprint could decrease the non-carbon footprint NickB79 Jun 2012 #19

phantom power

(25,966 posts)

1. "We'll keep on doing what we do until we can't, then we won't."

Reply to GliderGuider (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 12:41 PM

Jun 2012

handmade34

(22,756 posts)

2. we all should be terrified

Reply to GliderGuider (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 12:41 PM

Jun 2012

and very concerned about the future for our children and grandchildren

"...recommend that world governments undertake five actions immediately to have any hope of delaying or minimizing the shift of the planetary state. According to Mooers:

"Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower our population very quickly. More of us need to move to optimal areas at higher density and let parts of the planet recover. Folks like us have to be forced to be materially poorer, at least in the short term. We also need to invest a lot more in creating technologies to produce and distribute food without eating up more land and wild species. It's a very tall order."

a tall order but crucial...

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

5. "It's a hard problem..."

Reply to handmade34 (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 12:57 PM

Jun 2012

Ask any mathematician or physicist what that phrase really means.

FirstLight

(13,360 posts)

3. it's awful

Reply to GliderGuider (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 12:44 PM

Jun 2012

Like a trainwreck in slow motion...so much that SHOULD'VE been done... I guess our children will hate us for good reason in a couple decades...

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)

4. Very sad.

Reply to GliderGuider (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 12:45 PM

Jun 2012

I try to stay positive, but it gets harder by the day. What a mad, egotistical species we are.

Auggie

(31,173 posts)

7. The amount of damage we did in a minuscule period of Earth's history is amazing ...

Reply to Starboard Tack (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 01:22 PM

Jun 2012

no other species has come close.

Just on a blip on the radar, so to speak

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)

10. Very true

Reply to Auggie (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 01:50 PM

Jun 2012

Question is "How to inspire people to change?" We humans are an odd breed, but we do respond to the old "carrot and stick" method of learning. Waste and greed should be discouraged and penalized proportionately and conservation and frugality should be encouraged and rewarded.

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

6. It reminds me of what people who live in tiny, remote towns say

Reply to GliderGuider (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 12:59 PM

Jun 2012

"It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here."

IDemo

(16,926 posts)

8. Douglas Adams called it in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Reply to GliderGuider (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 01:34 PM

Jun 2012

When a human population is shipwrecked on an alien planet, they must form a new society and the first decision is to make tree leaves the official currency. The immediate result is the defoliation of the entire planet in a blaze of greed, resulting in hyperinflation and an economic depression.

Not at all far from the reality.

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

9. It's worth noting that the majority of the increase is in our carbon footprint.

Reply to GliderGuider (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 01:40 PM

Jun 2012

The non-carbon footprint from 2008 to 2050 goes up from 0.7 to 1.0 (43%)
The carbon footprint goes up from 0.8 to 1.8 (125%).

Pray for peak oil and a global economic crash.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

11. That graph is "Business as usual". We are not following that path.

Reply to GliderGuider (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 02:43 PM

Jun 2012

A Solar Transition is Possible
Peter D. Schwartzman & David W. Schwartzman
March 2011

Introduction
Arguably no challenge is more serious for the world’s future than bringing about a rapid decarbonation of the energy infrastructure with the possibility of preventing the onset of catastrophic climate change. With a mathematical model we demonstrate that this transition is technically plausible using modest inputs of existing fossil fuel reserves in the creation of a global solar power infrastructure even with ex- isting solar technologies such as wind turbines. In addition, this global power capacity can likewise provide energy consumption per person levels for all of humanity consistent with high human development requirements.
An energy infrastructure that depends largely on renewa- bles appears inevitable as easily mined fossil fuels will be exhausted.1,2 Given the potential for catastrophic climate change and the inherently negative environmental externalities of non-renewable forms of energy production, we must find ways to transition to renewables as soon as possible. Studies of this potential transition have pointed to the possibility of a swift shift from fossil fuels to renewables, using existing technologies, while providing sufficient long- term energy needs for all humanity.3,4,5,6 Smil’s7 and Kramer and Haigh’s8 pessimism with respect to the timing of this change stems from a preoccupation with the history of major energy shifts but in our view fails to consider the power of exponential growth in R&D investments to usher in more rapid change. We submit that the massive economic investments to propel this switch are available if spending priorities are changed.5,9,10

Current world’s power production is ~16.5 terawatts (TW) resulting in the consumption of 522 EJ of energy annually; electrical production (from central producers) amounts to only 13% of this.11, a By 2030 global energy consumption is projected to rise 39% to 724 EJ.12 Theoretically, the amount of available renewable power far exceeds current human uses, by a factor of well over one thousand.4 Discounting inaccessible zones (i.e., open seas, high mountains), available wind power is 40-85 TW13 and solar power is ~580 TW.3 Current production however is extremely low with a mere 0.02 TW (wind) and 0.008 TW (solar).3 Thus, if we can tap into just a fraction of available renewable energy (RE), we can easily displace the need for fossil fuels and nuclear power completely. Therefore, technically-speaking, our species will not run out of available energy into the far future. Furthermore, greenhouse gas and many toxic air emissions can also be greatly diminished, potentially averting climate catastrophes as well as and substantially reducing social and environmental externalities of fossil-fuel byproducts.6 Fortunately, the utilization of this energy should not significantly contribute to climate change, in particular, by tapping into wind as a source of energy.14,15,16, b

Building the renewable infrastructure to sustain future energy needs will require dedicated effort and use of existing non-renewable energy sources. Jacobson and Delucchi3 make the case that this goal can be accomplished as early as 2030 with a mixture of new wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), and hydroelectric power plants. Sovacool and Watts5 argue that no technical limitations exist to converting the entire electrical grid (in both the United States and New Zealand, the two countries they examine) to one based completely on renewable sources. Fthenakis et al.17 argue that the U.S. can supply 69% of its electrical (and 35% of total energy) needs by 2050 using solar energy alone, given expected technological improvements in PV, concentrated solar pow- er (CSP) and compressed air electrical storage (CAES). With these optimistic studies in mind, here we model the creation of new RE infrastructure as a function of a fraction of annual fossil fuel consumption in order to determine the fossil fuel inputs that may be necessary to make this transition as well as the importance of other contributing variables....

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

12. We are so far.

Reply to kristopher (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 02:48 PM

Jun 2012

Note the word "Possible" in the title of your article. So far the use of fossil fuels is following the BAU path with absolutely no indication of a deviation.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

14. That isn't true.

Reply to GliderGuider (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 03:01 PM

Jun 2012

The inroads that renewable energy is making are nothing short of astronomical. Saying that all of the manufacturing infrastructure that has been developed over the past 14 years counts for nothing because the world didn't change overnight is an asinine claim, GG. For the past several years about half of all new generating capacity has been renewables and the manufacturing capacity that made that happen is continuing to expand.

"No indiction of a deviation" indeed. True only if your are blind.

Since you've "rejected" nuclear you'v become increasingly strident and irrational in your attacks on renewables. Given your past history of pretending to be antinuclear while secretly promoting the technology, I can't help but wonder where your motive for promoting so much misinformation actually is rooted.

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

15. Perhaps you should tell that to the WWF.

Reply to kristopher (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 03:05 PM

Jun 2012

They appear to think that we're on the BAU path when it comes to actual fossil fuel use.

No matter how angry you want to get with me, this is not just my perception. We're doing all we can with renewables, and thjey're not making a bit of difference to fossil fuel use so far. The one thing that is helping isn't renewables, it's recession. Hopefully this will all change soon.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

16. They "think that we're on the BAU path"?

Reply to GliderGuider (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 06:15 PM

Jun 2012

They don't make a declaration of what they "think" our future path will be other than to say it cannot be 'business as usual', GG.
Let me make that clear for you:
- they make a projection of where we will be if nothing changes
- they assert that things will change either for the worse or for the better
- they lay out a proposal for positive change.

ONE PLANET PERSPECTIVE
Most people essentially desire the same thing: A life where needs are met; to be safe and healthy; to be able to explore interests and realize potential; and to improve well-being. Along with these personal aspirations, they have the support of all 193 member states of the United Nations, which have committed under various international agreements to end poverty, ensure safe drinking water, protect biodiversity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The trends and analyses outlined in this report suggest that under “business as usual”, such expectations and commitments will become increasingly difficult to meet.

In order to reverse the declining Living Planet Index, bring the Ecological Footprint down to within planetary limits, avoid dangerous climate change and achieve sustainable development, a fundamental reality must be embedded as the basis of economies, business models and lifestyles: The Earth’s natural capital – biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services – is limited.

WWF’s One Planet perspective explicitly proposes to manage, govern and share natural capital within the Earth’s ecological boundaries. In addition to safeguarding and restoring this natural capital, WWF seeks better choices along the entire system of production and consumption, supported by redirected financial flows and more equitable resource governance. All of this, and more, is required to decouple human development from unsustainable consumption (moving away from material and energy-intensive commodities), to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, to maintain ecosystem integrity, and to promote pro-poor growth and development (Figure 58).

The One Planet perspective reminds us that our choices are highly interdependent. Preserving natural capital, for example, will affect decisions and possible outcomes relating to the way we produce and consume. Financial flows and governance structures will similarly determine to a great extent whether production and consumption choices will actually contribute to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem integrity and, ultimately, food, water and energy for all.

This chapter outlines the top 16 priority actions required for living within the means of one planet. Implementing such a paradigm shift will be a tremendous challenge. We all face uncomfortable choices and trade-offs, but only by taking brave, informed decisions can healthy, sustainable and equitable human societies be ensured, now and into the future.

http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/1_lpr_2012_online_full_size_single_pages_final_120516.pdf

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

17. Read what I say, not what you want me to have said.

Reply to kristopher (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 08:18 PM

Jun 2012

I said, "They appear to think that we're on the BAU path when it comes to actual fossil fuel use."
I did not say, "They appear to think that we're going to stay on the current BAU path for the next 38 years."

What they say in the report is:

In order for the world to stay below 2°C of warming – and so avoid
dangerous climate change – global greenhouse gas emissions must
be reduced to no more than 80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050.

In 1990 we released 22.6 Gt CO2.
In 2010 we released 33.1 Gt CO2
80% of 1990 levels is 18 Gt CO2.

They appear to estimate that we'd release about 75 Gt CO2 in 2050 under BAU, so we'd have to find some way to restrict ourselves to emitting 25% that amount.

They go on to say:

The report raises a number of significant
issues and challenges – political, economic, environmental and
social – that will need to be addressed in order to realize this
energy vision and minimize the impact of using more bioenergy.

The political and social challenges they foresee would probably prevent us from coming anywhere near such an ambitious target if they were operating on their own. Fortunately, the economic challenges they expect probably won't work the way they expect. Instead, a long-term depression in the global economy will not only reduce FF consumption significantly, it will probably combine with the effects of climate change to start reducing our population - and changing peoples' attitudes, values and behaviour into the bargain as changes to the infrastructure reliably drive changes in the structure and superstructure of our global culture.

Will that be enough to keep us below +2C? Probably not, since +2C is already baked in the cake, but it might be enough to keep us below +6. Maybe.

We'd better try, though, because next to the danger posed by CO2 no other challenge face even comes close.

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)

21. CO2 emissions remain, again, at the high end of the scenarios. That's BAU.

Reply to kristopher (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 10, 2012, 01:56 AM

Jun 2012

Figure 2: Observed and projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1990. Triangles show annual average marine surface air CO2 concentrations for the period 1990 to 2008 downloaded from the NOAA ESRL web site (www.esrl.noaa.gov) in September 2009. The red and green lines shows annual average CO2 concentrations for the SRES A1B (red) and B2 (green) marker emissions scenarios projected using the reference version of the Bern carbon cycle model (solid) and the ISAM model (dashed). These two scenarios give the upper and lower limits of the 6 illustrative/marker scenarios in the period plotted. The blue shading shows the range from low to high climate - carbon cycle feedbacks.

http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html

The SRES A1B Emissions Scenarios

Key Assumptions: A future world of very rapid economic growth, low population growth and rapid introduction of new and more efficient technology. Major underlying themes are economic and cultural convergence and capacity building, with a substantial reduction in regional differences in per capita income. In this world, people pursue personal wealth rather than environmental quality.

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)

20. Yes, and we can build a robot moon factory that makes SBSP.

Reply to kristopher (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 10, 2012, 01:51 AM

Jun 2012

The situations are about as likely.

NickB79

(19,253 posts)

23. We aren't following BAU. We're EXCEEDING it.

Reply to kristopher (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 11, 2012, 11:57 PM

Jun 2012

For example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112717335

China's carbon emissions could be nearly 20% higher than previously thought, a new analysis of official Chinese data showed on Sunday, suggesting the pace of global climate change could be even faster than currently predicted.

If BAU was based on faulty data to start with, and this data is actually correct, we're actually on a path that's WORSE than the BAU scenario.

catbyte

(34,402 posts)

13. I should be dead by 2050

Reply to GliderGuider (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 02:50 PM

Jun 2012

and by the looks of things, I'll be fortunate. Maybe I can fertilize the planet with my ashes.

Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Leo, Taz & Nigel, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Aren’t Luggage--HISS!”

flamingdem

(39,313 posts)

22. It gets like that

Reply to catbyte (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 11, 2012, 01:00 AM

Jun 2012

I would NOT want to be born now, it's too depressing, so much destruction, so much arrogance, so few solutions.. sigh

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)

18. The silver lining is that the non-carbon footprint isn't increasing much.

Reply to GliderGuider (Original post)

Sat Jun 9, 2012, 02:33 AM

Jun 2012

NickB79

(19,253 posts)

19. Yes, but the rising carbon footprint could decrease the non-carbon footprint

Reply to Odin2005 (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 9, 2012, 03:57 PM

Jun 2012

And that's very, very bad for humanity.

By destroying forests, farmland, and sea life, global warming will leave less available for humans to use, so we'll be forced to use less of it.

Reply to this discussion