Reducing global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) over the coming century will be more challenging than society has been led to believe, according to a research commentary appearing this week in the journal Nature.
The authors, from the University of Colorado at Boulder, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, and McGill University in Montreal, said the technological challenges of reducing CO2 emissions have been significantly underestimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This fact should probably make you take a duke in your britches. The IPCC has been very explicit on the horrors that will come about due to global warming. But they were pretty rosy on our chances to get out of it with our technology.
The study concludes the IPCC is overly optimistic in assuming that, even without action by policymakers, new technologies that will result in dramatic reductions in the growth of future emissions will be developed and implemented.
Titled “Dangerous Assumptions,” the Nature commentary is co-authored by scientists Roger Pielke, Jr., of CU-Boulder, Tom Wigley of NCAR and economist Christopher Green of McGill University.
“This welcome commentary is an indication that the science policy discussions have shifted from ‘is there global warming?’ to ‘how does society respond?'” said Cliff Jacobs of the National Science Foundation (NSF)’s Division of Atmospheric Sciences, which funds NCAR.
“In the end, there is no question whether technological innovation is necessary–it is,” write the authors. “The question is, to what degree should policy focus explicitly on motivating such innovation?”
“The IPCC plays a risky game in assuming that business-as-usual advances in technological innovation will carry most of the burden of achieving future emissions reductions, rather than focusing on those conditions that are necessary and sufficient for those innovations to occur.”
Recent changes in “carbon intensity”–CO2 emissions per unit of energy consumed–already are higher than those predicted by the IPCC because of rapid development of dirty coal power in places like China and India, a process expected to continue there for decades and eventually move into Africa.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently about 390 parts per million. A commonly cited goal is to stabilize concentrations at roughly 500 parts per million or less(a goal which might be WAY to high).
Because technical innovation is ongoing, the IPCC authors assume that most of the needed reductions will occur automatically. According to calculations by the Nature authors, the IPCC assumes that 57 to 96 percent of the total carbon removed from the energy supply will occur automatically through such routine technological progress.
The reason for the IPCC’s underestimate of carbon intensity changes lies partly in the way the IPCC emissions scenarios partition future emissions changes into those that will occur spontaneously and those that are policy-driven, say the scientists. This partitioning underestimates the full magnitude of the technology challenge associated with stabilizing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
“According to the IPCC report, the majority of the emission reductions required to stabilize CO2 concentrations are assumed to occur automatically,” says Pielke. “Not only is this reduction unlikely to happen under current policies, but we are moving in the opposite direction right now. We believe these kinds of assumptions in the analysis blind us to reality and could potentially distort our ability to develop effective policies.” Or in other words, our policies are not in any way helping to improve the technology we need to solve these problems. Or to put it still another way, we have a case of failed leadership. The lunatics are running the asylum.
Stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases was the primary objective of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change approved by almost all countries, including the United States, notes Wigley.
“Stabilization is a more daunting challenge than many realize and requires a radical ‘decarbonization’ of energy systems,” says Wigley. “Global energy demand is projected to grow rapidly, and these huge new demands must be met by largely carbon-neutral energy sources–sources that either do not use fossil fuels or that capture and store any emitted CO2.”
Unlike the IPCC authors, who built in assumptions about future “spontaneous” technological innovations, the Nature commentary authors began with a set of “frozen technology” scenarios as baselines–scenarios in which energy technologies are assumed to stay at present levels. “With a frozen technology approach, the full scope of the carbon-neutral technology challenge is placed into clear view,” says Green.
If all this sounds confusing to you let me sum it up in a simple way. The IPCC thought that the people running the world would, you know, care about the survival of the human race and change laws to encourage the development of things like wind power, solar, etc. The people who did this study said “wait a minute, the world is being run by mostly morons! If we keep on like this we are going to have a much harder time.”
Without strong leadership at every level, we wont get the wind farms, we wont get the solar plants and we wont get the laws that reduce the dirty energy sources. We will get them in fits and starts, but nothing close to the SWEEPING changes that we will need. If this bothers you consider who you vote for next time you go to the polls…
2007 EXCHANGE OF IDEAS BETWEEN FRIENDS (and perhaps timely in 2008)
__________________________________________
Dear B,
In the light of E. O. Wilson’s comments about small creatures and today’s report from the World Conservation Union (IUCN) that more than 41,000 species of animals and plants are now on its ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST, do you think it is too early to consider that the evolutionary success of the human species may not be guaranteed? Perhaps it is not too late to consider how the human species in our time could inadvertently precipitate a “Human Community Collapse” by adamantly insisting upon more unbridled growth of business enterprise and human numbers now overspreading the Earth.
I am concerned that after threatening biodiversity with extinction and the environment with irreversible degradation, and also dissipating the limited resources of Earth, humankind will become an unexpected threat to its own survival.
Sincerely,
Steve
____________________________________________
Hi Steve,
You bring up a very good point, and one that is foremost in the minds of everyone with environmental awareness. The notion of sustainability does not seem to have been infused in equal value to progress made in both the industrial and technological revolutions. When we look closely, it is as if we are but children playing with new toys, not grasping just what they mean nor thinking very far into the future. Anyone who studies simple biology knows that unchecked growth cannot last, that eventually the system that supported whatever it is gets out of balance, and then…well…things change. So at the very least we are looking for sweeping change. How much of it we will see in our short lifespan is uncertain, but what is certain is that even now we are observing first-hand some negative effects of our actions in the past. Nature is very efficient, and certainly will take care of things one way or another. I agree with what you suggest, that we could benefit from applying caution and implementing the enlightened consideration of experts in our approach to the future. Application of knowledge requires official sanction and public policy, which as you know is not so easy to achieve. Hopefully, the brightest minds among us who post their knowledge and recommendations in research & books and who broadcast their views and information on things like TED TALKS will encourage our policy makers to get on the same page, i.e., as stewards of the earth and its abundance rather than exploiters. Ultimately, I have hope, and think a hopeful attitude can have a snowball effect. I’m pretty sure hope is the official stance of this organization, by the way, and why a forum such as this is so encouraging.
Thanks, Steve, for your posts here and elsewhere on our blogs.
___________________________________________
Dear B,
Sometimes it looks to me as if some of our brothers and sisters are so focused on the accumulation of wealth and power, in feathering their own gigantic nests, frequenting exclusive clubs, flying private jets, sailing yachts and visiting exotic hideaways, that the “powers that be” have overlooked the certain requirements necessary for the maintenance of our planetary home, which is soon to become endangered by certain unbridled, distinctly human enterprises now overspreading the Earth.
How do things look to you?
Always,
Steve
___________________________________________
Steve,
I like the idea of everyone coming to see that we are definitely interconnected. Just as the bees and flowering plants need each other, so do we humans need the environment. The sooner we get truly sustainable in our stewardship of the environment, the better. The last 50 years have seen unprecedented wealth and technology, and a few have enjoyed advantages never dreamt of in the past. Hopefully, we will all start doing our part, even the very insulated among us. I’m actually quite optimistic, as I think there is so much positive focus for new energies coming along in young people, and a rededication to creative efforts to make the world a better place in those of us who are older. I certainly can imagine these things building on themselves. It starts right here, wherever we are.
B.
____________________________________________
Dear B,
I share your optimism. With good science as our guide and the adequate use of intelligence and other splendid gifts granted to human beings by God, we can choose to respond ably to the requirements of reality, whatsoever they may be.
Elders like me will hopefully be open to guidance of our young people, as you suggest, and also of the mothers of children, rather than holdfast to the outworn creeds of the children of men among us. The self-proclaimed masters of the universe in my not-so-great generation appear to have lost their way.
On the other hand, we cannot rule out the possibility that I am one of those unfortunate elders about whom I report, who has lost touch with good science, the natural order of living things, and the limitations imposed upon human life by the very nature of the biophysical world we inhabit.
I and my generation can and will do better. Of that I am certain.
Sincerely,
Steve
___________________________________________
ONWARD!
B.
___________________________________________
Dear B,
I believe this is one way to begin. We have to speak of topics that are taboo, just as we do here.
My greatest concern is that the undoing of the human species, and life as we know it, could inadvertently occur as a result of the adamant and relentless maintenance of SILENCE.
Silence is something to be feared. Silence is especially terrifying and potentially ruinous when it is actively employed as a tool for denying good science.
Thank YOU,
Steve
__________________________________________
Steve,
I don’t mean to be flip, but the old saying comes to mind: “The more the merrier!” We can hope more voices will speak up for beneficial uses of our stunning technologies to forge a path to a wise, efficient, and fittingly sustainable paradigm for the future world. There is another saying that comes to mind should we fail to understand what we need to do, and that is, “That way lies madness.” I am so looking forward to the tipping point, where all accept as a given the need to create and live in a balanced world. I know it is coming.
B.
____________________________________________
Dear B,
You make wonderful points. Let me see if I understand you well enough.
Would it be correct to say that we have a choice: either we can choose to accept the knowledge derived from the best available, good science and deploy that knowledge to maintain a sustainable world, one fit for human habitation, or we can fail to do what is necessary by holding fast to an unsustainable paradigm for the future world…and by continuing to defend flawed data derived from politically convenient and economically expedient mad science?
Always,
Steve
__________________________________________
…and having the wisdom to know the difference.
B.
__________________________________________
Dear B,
At least in my humble opinion, THIS IS COMMUNICATION!
Perhaps humanity has global challenges in the offing, challenges that are formidable, even as we begin to take the measure of them.
As we steady our focus on these challenges, it becomes evident that there may be no quick fixes to the problems with which we are presented. Business-as-usual brought us to this moment in human history, but cannot take us to the future we picture for our children.
Contemplate and picture in your mind the business-as-usual activities with which we are familiar. We can see that the unbridled growth of economic activities is overspreading the Earth.
Now for the hard part: questions.
Can the seemingly endless growth and the astonishing success of unregulated human production and consumption activities continue in the same old business-as-usual way and at their current scale on a relatively small, finite planet the size of Earth?
If the Earth is round and has physical limitations, is it reasonable and sensible to consider that there are limits to the unrestricted global growth of human activities on Earth?
Are there no alternatives to untethered economic globalization?
Are there no options to the unchecked per capita consumption of Earth’s limited resources?
Who knows, before long questions like these will become a part of open discussions at international conferences, in governing bodies and spoken of by those in the mass media.
I and my generation are going to do better, much better.
__________________________________________
Steve,
Your questions almost answer themselves and wholly appeal to common sense. I believe that love of humanity, passion for life and a strong will to survive will eventually corral all of us into the same camp, which is good because we must work together to solve our problems. We may be lucky that things are getting so blatantly out of hand, because a cry for better will eventually emerge. Hat’s off to any who can keep their heads while some around us are losing theirs. Like a teenager on a joy ride, flagrant environmental abuses cannot have good results and therefore cannot last that long. The trick will be coming to the tipping point. I believe we are very very close. I hope others will participate in this inspiring conversation. We believe in the exchange of ideas and invites it with these blogs. Thanks so much for participating.
____________________________________________
Dear B,
Thanks to you, D., Al and the great scientists of the IPCC, it does appear more and more people are beginning to awaken, finally, with the coming of each new day, to something that is fresh and unforeseen about the world we inhabit.
I and our dearest colleagues have only become awakened just a matter of days earlier than those who are soon, or else eventually, to be released from their slumber.
Once awake, people are going to be able to see that while nothing about the surface of the Earth has changed, not really; everything about the wondrous landscape is different in unexpected ways.
When many in the human community perceive what you and other leaders are saying and doing, it will be as if they are seeing the world God blesses us to inhabit for the first time, I suppose.
That is going to make a difference.
All the best to you,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
Chapel Hill, North Carolina