Tag: climate change

UN issues more warnings on climate change…will the US listen?

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a new report concluding that climate change is already having a big impact on agriculture, human health, and water supplies, and are warning that these effects will get more severe over time.  The IPCC warns that governments and businesses need to take action immediately against these growing risks, though I fear that even the business-friendly GOP will be more focused on short term profits and gains than long term sustainability.

This is a follow-up to a report last year saying humans are to blame for global warming.  You can read more at the New York Times.

Climate Change is not Debatable

There was a nice segment on CNN recently about how the media presents climate change as an issue that can be debated, and gives equal airtime to opposing views on an issue which is really about as settled as you can get in science.  Check it out below.

Leaked UN report warns of climate change consequences

A leaked UN report paints a grim picture for the future of our species on this planet.  It warns that climate change may be nearly impossible to solve if we don’t act soon.  Dealing with the result of our current course of inaction will require technology that doesn’t exist currently, and may not even be feasible.  The report acknowledges the economic damage that stopping climate change quickly will cause…but this pales in comparison to the damage that inaction will bring.  I’m not convinced that yet another report like this will actually drive change…not when there are so many special interests focused more on their own short term profit rather than ensuring a stable planet for future generations to enjoy.  Sad.

Read more in the New York Times.

Atmospheric CO2 reaches 400ppm

The levels of CO2 in our atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million, a slightly arbitrary red flag point.  Scientists have been warning that anything about 350ppm will lead to dangerous global warming, so this is pretty bleak news though not surprising.  When this planet last experienced conditions like this, temperatures were 3-4 degrees Celsius higher, and sea levels were between 16 and 131 feet higher than today.  Perhaps the worst news, though, is that the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 has been increasing slightly, so we’re not even on the right path to fix this problem.  (link)

Why the US government doesn’t act on climate change

If you want to know why the US doesn’t take any significant action on climate change, look no further than the House of Representatives subcommittee on Climate Change.  Its new chair is Rep Chris Stewart, a Republican from Utah who does not believe in man-made climate change.  This is also a guy who thinks the EPA should be eliminated because it ‘thwarts energy development.’  Yeah, just ask China how that’s going.  I for one believe that sacrificing long term growth and prosperity in favor of short term profits is NOT pro-business, and am disgusted at the Republican party as a whole for taking that stance while at the same time pretending to be pro-business.  This short-term perspective is nothing more than personal greed.

When virtually all climate scientists believe in man-made climate change…to have the chair of this subcommittee oppose that view is an outright rejection of science and logic.  No wonder Congress can’t get anything done.

(via Salon)

The cost of climate change

People are so incredibly focused on what fighting climate change would cost then, now, that they tend to overlook the cost of inaction.  Sure, most of this cost will be borne by future generations, but what gives us the right to burden them with this?  They deserve the same, or better, quality of life as us.  So, what is the cost of climate impacts due to human-caused CO2 pollution?  A recent study (link) finds the worst case cost, which is based on our current course of action, at about $1240 trillion, a number so large that I have a hard time comprehending it (the timeframe of this is a bit unclear, but they do say the annual impact is about $1.5 trillion so this cost looks like a long-term one, not to downplay its significance any!).  What’s more important is that they also estimate that, if we can stabilize CO2 levels at 450ppm, the impact is only about $110 trillion, a substantial savings.  Given the obvious cost savings here, and our current inaction, I fear our generation will do nothing more than teach future generations to not be so greedy.  Which is not all bad, assuming future generations can manage to still have a cohesive, productive society in the changing ecosystem we’re creating for them.  Read more here.

Jumping now to this infographic, obtained from grist.  It lays out the expected impact of climate change, taking into account different CO2 emission scenarios (we’re on track for the worst case scenario as laid out here…scary).  Click the thumbnail below for the full image.

IiB CO2 graphic v3

Where is Peak Oil?

The idea of Peak Oil, where demand exceeds supply, threatened us for a long time yet continual advances in oil extraction techniques keeps pushing that date farther and farther out, as explained in a recent article over at FastCompany (worth reading if you’re into this stuff!).  Instead, we’re facing a new dilemma…we’ve gotten so good at extracting fossil fuels from the ground, that we now face the grim reality of the environmental impact of consuming the known and accessible fossil fuel reserves.  If we want to stay below the internationally-agreed upon 2°C of global warming, we can dump about 565 gigatons more CO2 into the atmosphere.  The problem is that current fossil fuel reserves, ignoring any future discoveries, contain about 2,795 gigatons of CO2 (source).  Yeah.  Not good.  Either fossil fuels need to get so expensive that people stop using them, or we’re going to really mess up this planet.

Can the Internet of Things help reduce global warming?

The Internet of Things is best thought of as abundant networked, communicating smart devices all around you.  Sensors, mostly, that are all communicating and making available unprecedented amounts of information about objects and the environment.  Houses that know what rooms people are in, what rooms they are likely to be in next, and adjust HVAC systems accordingly to reduce energy consumption, for example.  I’ve loved the idea of this from a technology geek perspective, but I hadn’t considered the environmental aspect until coming across this article talking about how it could offset billions of tons of CO2 through increased efficiency.  Interesting idea…and it makes a lot of sense.  We’d have to also consider the CO2 impact of actually producing so many sensors and networked objects, though.

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑