'Too Late to Avoid Global Warming' Say Scientists

This article was published in the Independent yesterday.

It reports on the latest study issued by the IPCC on 19 September.



Key points in the IPCC report are:

‘A rise of two degrees centigrade in global temperatures…is now "very unlikely" to be avoided.’

‘Very unlikely’ means a ‘1% to 10% chance of limiting the global temperature rise to two degrees centigrade or less’.

A two degree rise is considered to be

‘the threshold for catastrophic climate change which will expose millions to drought, hunger and flooding…’

It

‘put the inevitability of drastic global warming in the starkest terms yet, stating that major impacts…are unavoidable and the focus must be on adapting life to survive the most devastating changes.’

"If warming is not kept below two degrees centigrade, which will require the strongest mitigation efforts, and currently looks very unlikely to be achieved, the [sic] substantial global impacts will occur, such as species extinctions, and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger, flooding."

The article states:

‘For more than a decade, EU countries led by Britain have set a rise of two degrees centigrade or less in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels as the benchmark after which the effects of climate become devastating, with crop failures, water shortages, sea-level rises, species extinctions and increased disease.’

Two years ago, an authoritative study predicted there could be as little as 10 years before this "tipping point" for global warming was reached, adding a rise of 0.8 degrees had already been reached with further rises already locked in because of the time lag in the way carbon dioxide – the principal greenhouse gas – is absorbed into the atmosphere.


NB that means only 8 years from now.



The IPCC report states

‘the effects of this rise are being felt sooner than anticipated with the poorest countries and the poorest people set to suffer the worst of shifts in rainfall patterns, temperature rises and the viability of agriculture across much of the developing world.’

The Met Office scientist who co-chaired the committee said:

"Ten years ago we were talking about these impacts affecting our children and our grandchildren. Now it is happening to us."

‘…he believed it would now be "very difficult" to achieve the target…’

and

" You cannot mitigate your way out of this problem... The choice is between a damaged world or a future with a severely damaged world."

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, said that 2015 was the last year in which the world could afford a net rise in greenhouse gas emissions, after which "very sharp reductions" are required.



The article contains many moving examples of the devastation this would mean in practice, many of which are drawn directly from the IPCC report. Perhaps the most stark example is:

‘Asia: Up to a billion people will suffer water shortages as supplies dwindle with the melting of Himalayan glaciers.’

Others relevant to this topic are:

‘Polar regions: The seasonal thaw of permafrost will increase by 15 per cent and the overall extent of the permafrost will shrink by about 20 per cent. Indigenous communities such as the Inuit face loss of traditional lifestyle.’

And no doubt the polar bears, too.

'Small islands: Low-lying islands are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels with the Maldives already suffering land loss.’

The IPCC report would simply seem to reconfirm the argument set out in the topic ‘Is there time for Wild Law?’

In terms of averting catastrophe the answer is clearly no. But that merely reinforces the urgency for its universal introduction at the earliest possible opportunity. We simply cannot go on like this a moment longer.

The changes inherent in a Wild Law system of environmental and economic regulation are required with the utmost urgency to mitigate the effects of what we have already irreversibly done.

And scandalously are continuing to do with absolute irresponsibility.

It also hammers home the futility of waiting for governments – or anyone else for that matter – to act.

There is now an absolute moral imperative on each and every one of us to do all we can to put our lives in order without prevarication or excuses, to minimise our ecological footprint to the absolute in recognition that many are yet to start doing so, and to try to just as hard as we can to convince everyone we know to do the same.

It may sound drastic. But on the very best science the outcome now seems inevitable, and it would be foolish and irresponsible – as well as ultimately self-destructive – to do otherwise.


http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2976669.ece



.