Who cares………?

2 06 2017

Trump has just declared he’s taking the USA out of the Paris accord, and everyone’s freaking out…….. I personally don’t care much, and here’s why…..

Most people don’t realize, because they’re asleep at the wheel, read too many mainstream media headlines, and rather than do their own research before holding opinions believe what they are spoon fed by their TV screens that…..:

The Paris climate agreement:

1) had absolutely no binding language in it whatsoever, nor any repercussions for any countries that did not abide by it…..

2) required an increase in fossil fuel use up to the year 2100

3) would have already at this point required absolutely no new development of fossil fuels – only what was already “proven reserves”

4) has already been violated so badly that we absolutely cannot, by their own reckoning, keep levels below a 2 degree rise by 2050

5) completely and entirely relied on “carbon capture” – a technology which doesn’t yet exist in any form and is only dreamt of – to come along by mid-century and save us from catastrophic climate change.

 Professor Kevin Anderson has this to say about the Paris agreement….

The Paris Agreement is a genuine triumph of international diplomacy and of how the French people brought an often-fractious world together to see beyond national self interest. Moreover, the agreement is testament to how assiduous and painstaking science ultimately defeated the unremitting programme of misinformation by powerful vested interests. It is the twenty-first century’s equivalent to the success of Heliocentrism over the malign and unscientific inquisition.

The international community not only acknowledged the seriousness of climate change, but demonstrated sufficient unanimity to quantitatively define it: to hold “the increase in … temperature to well below 2°C … and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C”. But, as the time-weary idiom suggests, “the devil is in the detail” – or perhaps more importantly, the lack of it.

The deepest challenge to whether the Agreement succeeds or fails, will not come from the incessant sniping of sceptics and luke-warmers or those politicians favouring a literal reading of Genesis over Darwin. Instead, it was set in train many years ago by a cadre of well-meaning scientists, engineers and economists investigating a Plan B. What if the international community fails to recognise that temperatures relate to ongoing cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide? What if world leaders remain doggedly committed to a scientifically illiterate focus on 2050 (“not in my term of office”)? By then, any ‘carbon budget’ for even an outside chance of 2°C will have been squandered – and our global experiment will be hurtling towards 4°C or more. Hence the need to develop a Plan B.

Well the answer was simple. If we choose to continue our love affair with oil, coal and gas, loading the atmosphere with evermore carbon dioxide, then at some later date when sense prevails, we’ll be forced to attempt sucking our carbon back out of the atmosphere. Whilst a plethora of exotic Dr Strangelove options vie for supremacy to deliver on such a grand project, those with the ear of governments have plumped for BECCS (biomass energy carbon capture and storage) as the most promising “negative emission technology”. However these government advisors (Integrated Assessment Modellers – clever folk developing ‘cost-optimised’ solutions to 2°C by combining physics with economic and behavioural modelling) no longer see negative emission technologies as a last ditch Plan B – but rather now promote it as central pivot of the one and only Plan.

The speed and scale of emissions reduction that is actually required probably cannot be achieved while preserving the economic status quo. As climate scientist Kevin Anderson points out in a recent Nature Geoscience paper:

According to the IPCC’s Synthesis Report, no more than 1,000 billion tonnes (1,000 Gt) of CO2 can be emitted between 2011 and 2100 for a 66% chance (or better) of remaining below 2° C of warming (over preindustrial times). . . . However, between 2011 and 2014 CO2 emissions from energy production alone amounted to about 140 Gt of CO2. . . .” [Subtracting realistic emissions budgets for deforestation and cement production,] “the remaining budget for energy-only emissions over the period 2015–2100, for a ‘likely’ chance of staying below 2° C, is about 650 Gt of CO2.

To put this into perspective, recent data shows global food production (itself a major CO2 emitter), was 3.9Gt; Coal production was 9Gt; Iron Ore was 3.22Gt. The simple fact is that if we want to capture and store CO2, it will have to be done on a scale we do nothing else at……. not feeding the world, and not even feeding it its fossil fuels. ‘They’ expect to do this within less than twenty years, with technology that doesn’t yet exist, and anything remotely like what is needed,

Definition of Insanity

The world’s first commercial CO2 capture plant will be used to increase economic activity and will therefore actually increase CO2 emissions.

“It’s important to note that they will not be permanently storing the CO2 that will be captured,” she said. “Instead, it will be used for greenhouses, producing synfuels, etc. No negative emissions will be generated.”

“The captured carbon dioxide could also be used to manufacture transportation fuel, carbonated soft drinks and other products, Gebald said.”

“In order to meet the goal of removing the equivalent of 1 percent of annual global carbon dioxide emissions, 250,000 similar direct-air capture plants would have to be built, Gebald said.”

In other words, because we need to reduce our emissions by more than 50%, means we need to build over 12,500,000 of these CO2 removal machines. In under twenty years…… Think about the CO2 and debt required to accomplish this. Obviously it won’t happen, and if we try it will make things worse, because it appears that everyone’s oblivious to the fact that it is cumulative emissions that are doing the harm.

Until we get an ‘agreement’ to cease economic growth, nothing worthwhile will happen, and I therefore still hold to the conclusion nothing less than an economic collapse will ‘save us’ from climate change….. because I just cannot see any such agreement ever coming forth.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

8 responses

2 06 2017
Chris Harries

In a quirky sort of way this means the Trump has done the right thing in pulling out of the Paris deal, even if for the wrong reasons. The quirky thing I’m talking about is where the far ends of the ideological spectrum keep meeting up with each other these days and agreeing with each other on major policy positions. Like both the left and right were both stridently opposed to the Pacific Trade partnership. Both ends of the left-right spectrum campaigned and voted for France to exit the EU. Both Trump and Sanders supporters joined forces to kill off the Clinton campaign.

I guess this sort of highlights the weird, unfathomable mess the world is in, nothing else.

2 06 2017
wandering neone aka Tim

“Until we get an ‘agreement’ to cease economic growth, nothing worthwhile will happen, and I therefore still hold to the conclusion nothing less than an economic collapse will ‘save us’ from climate change….. because I just cannot see any such agreement ever coming forth.”

Dear,
I’m afraid to say that you are right. I recently came to a similar conclusion on a design/micro level. This temp. synthesis promotes UBI (a unconditional basic income) to tame the beast of economics/competivity and rusted self destructive behavior patterns. Quite the contrast with Trump his speech.

View story at Medium.com

I have spread this info with zero results so far. Ok, I admit, this is far from finished, some things still needs to be crystallized, but still, considering the urgency of the situation I decided to spread this one out “early”.

the result: till now no ones even cared to read it … which is saying a lot unfortunately :/

Left me with a strange, regained peace of mind nevertheless, after a decade of searching for (practical) answers very restlessly.

I can only say that I tried and try my best to counter this climate issue.

I’m afraid that’s all one can do.

2 06 2017
ejhr2015

Here’s another blog saying the Paris accord was dead before Trump acted;

https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2017/06/01/the-paris-climate-agreements-failure-was-structurally-inevitable/

2 06 2017
rabiddoomsayer

The Eemian CO2 topped out at close to 300ppm give or take a few ppm, we are now at 409ppm. The Eemian sea level was at least 3 meters higher than today and maybe more than five, temperatures were more than two degrees higher than last century. So how in the hell was the Paris Accord supposed to achieve it’s stated goals. Two degrees was blown by 2000, If not well before (locked in but not achieved).

If we stopped all industrial civilization today, by mid next year the climate will be very much worse than today. Along with all the CO2, we have been emitting aerosols that mask much of the effect of the CO2 and those aerosols will wash out nearly completely within twelve months.

All that remains is to kiss your ass goodbye.

Apparently I am as bad as the Deniers, but no one has actually told me where my argument is wrong. I would really like to be wrong.

2 06 2017
Dr Bob Rich

Exactly right, Mike.
The overwhelming majority of humans, including environmentalists, live in denial.

2 06 2017
Glenn

My guess is an economic collapse is about our best bet …

It has been said before ‘its simply too early and at the same time too late’ for meaningful intervention.

3 06 2017
timguldentops1

“Until we get an ‘agreement’ to cease economic growth, nothing worthwhile will happen, and I therefore still hold to the conclusion nothing less than an economic collapse will ‘save us’ from climate change….. because I just cannot see any such agreement ever coming forth.”

I came to the same conclusion in this story: https://medium.com/@wanderingneone/temporary-synthesis-around-climate-a-o- issues-366b58c066c9

Somewhat it is a promotion of UBI (unconditional basic income) as a possible tool to clear up this mess called climate change ao things. It is giving me some kind of regained peace, after dealing with this issue for around 10 years, but practically speaking, I don’t see it really happen either.

I have send this to several institutions, people, etc …with zero reply so far. No one even cares to read it trough …to give you an idea.

2017-06-02 2:16 GMT+02:00 Damn the Matrix :

> mikestasse posted: “Trump has just declared he’s taking the USA out of the > Paris accord, and everyone’s freaking out…….. I personally don’t care > much, and here’s why….. Most people don’t realize, because they’re asleep > at the wheel, read too many mainstream media head” >

3 06 2017
david higham

What a crazy world. More delusional bullshit here,from Clive James.
http://loonpond.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/in-which-reptiles-present-some.html#.WTJpFBh97rc

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s