ON NOVEMBER 2ND the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents mainstream scientific opinion, said that it was extremely likely that climate change is the product of human activity. Extremely likely in IPCC speak means having a probability of over 95%.In the probabilistic world that we live, that 95 percent confidence or more is pretty darn good. All the more reason to ignore that shrill minority in the Geriatrics Only Party who continue to deny climate change and the human causation.
The Scientific American chips in with this briefing:
What has changed is the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which have now touched 400 parts-per-million. Pollution in the first decade of the 21st century grew twice as fast as it did in the last few decades of the 20th century. The resulting global warming poses risks ranging from rising sea levels that drown inhabited coasts to crop failures from stronger heat waves and drought.So, what might be the effects if we continue along the same path?
The IPCC has now offered a budget for how much pollution people can add to the atmosphere without too much climate change. Unfortunately, humanity has already used more than half of that budget.
In terms of impacts, such as heatwaves and extreme rain storms causing floods, the report concludes that the effects are already being felt: “In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans.”Emissions are a big problem, which is why:
Droughts, coastal storm surges from the rising oceans and wildlife extinctions on land and in the seas will all worsen unless emissions are cut, the report states. This will have knock-on effects, according to the IPCC: “Climate change is projected to undermine food security.” The report also found the risk of wars could increase: “Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.”
The report also states that behavioural changes, such as dietary changes that could involve eating less meat, can have a role in cutting emissions.A whole lot of behavioral changes will be needed. Not easy to get that across. For instance, imagine telling people that eating beef is way more harmful to the environment than it is to drive around in cars:
Beef’s environmental impact dwarfs that of other meat including chicken and pork, new research reveals, with one expert saying that eating less red meat would be a better way for people to cut carbon emissions than giving up their cars. ...Think about what is coming up here in the US of A, which emits a seventh of the greenhouse gases. This month end is the granddaddy of all eating occasions: Thanksgiving. And, we would barely have time to loosen our belts before we dash out to buy a whole lot of stuff that we don't really need. Almost four weeks of a buying binge.
the message for the consumer is even stronger. Avoiding excessive meat consumption, especially beef, is good for the environment.
You think such behavior, and more, will change? And change soon? Dream on!
On the other hand, one could use the season of Christmas to adopt behavioral changes of a less-is-better life, which will be consistent with that radical thinker from the Levant, right?
Ok, got to go--cheeseburger is ready!
5 comments:
Ban the burger. Happy to march to that tune.
I think I commented this before. In Carl Sagan's writing on extra terrestrial life, he said if an alien civilization was to look at earth from a great distance, their first sign of life would be the discovery of the amounts of methane in the atmosphere , which is caused, by, wait for this, bovine flatulence ! That is the impact cows make on the atmosphere. Without a doubt, eating prodigious quantities of meat ranks high on the causes of global warming scale. I don't eat meat and am quite prepared to give up dairy products too in my contribution to containing global warming.
Lets storm the campuses. Hug trees. etc etc - where has all the college activism in the US gone ?? Lead on Sriram .....
As I have often blogged here, college campuses are far from honest activism. The "environmental activists" do not want to engage in honest discussions because that will mean they have to admit to eating burgers, owing second homes, going on vacations, etc., all of which are major contributors to climate change. Instead, it is easier and catchier to blame it all on the evil oil corporations, which is what they do. Not that the oil corporations are not evil--they are. But, they are as much in it for the same reasons that we are in it for juicy burgers, or going on vacations, or ...
It is one messed up world, my friend, where honesty is the most difficult to obtain resource ever.
As a voting member of the Geriatrics Only Party (at the ripe old age of 24) I must agree with my shrill minority that we are not the cause of Climate Change. That statement is where we digress, however, because I can't ignore the data showing how much impact we have on the environment. I am, after all, not a politician. We are definitely making things much, MUCH worse.
There was another period of warmth during the Dark Ages, and excavations of vineyards in England make this pretty clear. This is not where our current shift in climate will stop, of course, because we'll have vineyards in Siberia before everybody dies at our emission rate.
If only politicians could get over the discussion over what causes climate change and actually do something, eh?
ya know Sriram, you are absolutely correct about the honest activism on campuses. Recently, WOU started an environmental club, and me, being the bike riding/no driving, vegan, who uses reused paper for printing assignments (often with another assignment from another class on the back), and who uses baking soda and vinegar to wash my hair, thought that joining this club would be great! I'd meet more people like me who are "radicals," but instead, it was people complaining about recycling companies and fossil fuels... Not one mention of what we can do ourselves to slow climate change, instead it was what everyone else should do...
Oh, and my favorite part, the big idea was to make a bunch of posters and one giant poster to talk about how amazing our club is, and also everyone got handed about 3-5 pieces of paper with a bunch of shit on them about the club... really environmental, isn't it? We could have easily talked without all the paper, but hey, at least I have more paper for assignments, right? Haha! So in short, I probably won't be going back, and I'm quite disappointed in that bullshit. It looks like I'll continue to be a loner on campus and just some "crazy radical" all by myself. Which honestly, I couldn't be happier about!
Anonymous, you have given me enough and more data for me to figure out who you are ... but, shall not address you by your name because you have not IDed yourself ;)
Thanks for adding evidence that honest discussions are lacking at campuses.
Maybe you should think about going back to the club meeting, at least once more, in order to provide them your "different" take on what the Environmental Club could/should do. What if (yes, a big if that is) you are able to convince them about the merits of some of your ideas?
Mike, I am with you ... at this point, there is no point talking about the past Ice Ages and about whether humans are "really" the cause of the current climate change dynamics ... it does come down to a challenge of what we want to do about it ... But, with the GOP in control of the House (and from Jan. the Senate too) and with Democrooks in the White House, well, odds are that nothing will happen and everybody's calculation will be "how can we maximize our position at the 2016 elections?"
BTW, notice that I am an equal-opportunity basher? hehehe ;) Geriatric at 24 ... hmmm ... ;
Post a Comment