Apocalypse roundup

Remember those fires in Australia?

The deadly bush fires in Australia have released millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, equivalent to more than a third of the country's CO2 emissions for a whole year, according to scientists.

But that's not going to be a problem because the pace of climate change doesn't exceed estimates, right?

Scientists: Pace of Climate Change Exceeds Estimates

CHICAGO, Feb. 14 -- The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, scientists said Saturday. 

"We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations," Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Yeah, sure, but it's all China's fault!  Isn't it?

The full extent of the west's responsibility for Chinese emissions of greenhouse gases has been revealed by a new study. The report shows that half of the recent rise in China's carbon dioxide pollution is caused by the manufacturing of goods for other countries - particularly developed nations such as the UK.

Last year, China officially overtook the US as the world's biggest CO2 emitter. But the new research shows that about a third of all Chinese carbon emissions are the result of producing goods for export.

Well, ok.  But sky god Obama will save us, won't he?

Todd Stern, the Obama administration’s new top climate-change negotiator, wants to tamp down on the expectations. He talks tough and is all for the shift to a low-carbon economy, but he’s not an ideologue. And he may well be reflecting the White House’s pragmatism in the face of numerous challenges.

In a speech that Stephen Power reported in the Wall Street Journal , Mr. Stern said the road map of greenhouse-gas emission reductions laid out at a 2007 summit in Bali was simply too ambitious. “We need to be very mindful of what the dictates of science are, and of the art of the possible,” he said. The Bali targets – a 25% to 40% cut by industrialized nations by 2020 – were simply too ambitious. “It’s not possible to get that kind of number. It’s not going to happen,” he said.

This lowering of expectations seems to be part of the Obama administration’s message on climate change right now.

It's almost like he's saying we have to set "realistic and achievable" emissions limits and not "promise what we cannot do".  If only we had Al Gore instead of this Todd Stern nimrod we wouldn't be hearing that kind of doubletalk!  Oh, wait.

It's good to know that in these uncertain times, when there seems to be so little you can count on, the apocalypse is still coming along right on schedule.

Comments

[Save the Oocytes]

After finally reading the returns of my gambit on the "Ender" thread on ATR, I think I'm going to scale back the length of my comments somewhat.

So—the needs of Earth's environment are simply unrealistic. We are too used to rowing towards that waterfall to slow down much now!

Shorter: mega-dittos, John!

[John Caruso]

Yep, that's a great metaphor; Democrats are offering to paddle slightly slower, but not to do anything that might actually prevent the plunge at the end.

But the best part will be listening to nice liberals arguing that we have to accept whatever response the Democrats will allow as "possible" (based on their parochial political calculations), whether or not it will actually avert disaster.

[Thomas Daulton]

Butbutbut... Freeman Dyson says that in just a few years, we will genetically engineer trees to sequester carbon and drop kilotons of diamonds on the ground instead of leaves, thereby solving our environmental and economic problems all at once!! So you see, there's really no point in worrying about any of this today.

[SteveB]

So Obama is for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050, but his representative is against a 25% reduction by 2020? I guess committing future administrations to large reductions in greenhouse gases is easier than doing something yourself.

Here's a plan: we continue business-as-usual right up to Jan. 20, 2017 and then completely stop producing any greenhouse gases the day after.

And 5 media-conventional-wisdom points to the Wall Street Journal for recycling the tired "ideologue" vs. "pragmatist" meme.

And I thought trees already sequestered carbon? WTF?