How bad is it?
We are already too hot. We know we are already too hot because:
We are already too hot. We know we are already too hot because:
- of the extreme weather and fire events we are experiencing on a rapidly increasing basis
- environmental impacts are already catastropic for many ecosystems
- we have already set off dangerous positive feedback loops that speed up warming
- when greenhouse gases were last this high (with carbon dioxide over 410 ppm; and carbon dioxide equivalents over 490 ppm), sea levels were around 24 metres higher and the temperature 2-3C warmer; and around 10C warmer at the poles
- there is a 20-30 year lag before some of the changes in greenhouse gas concentrations effect temperature
- at equilibrium we are actually approaching 2.5C, but only experiencing about 1.2C of warming because we are creating about 0.8C of cooling (shade or global dimming from coal and other fossil fuel particulates) and due to the lag in how greenhouse gases manifest as temperature due to the effect of oceans and other factors.
Why reversing global warming is our only option?
If we don't reverse global warming and cool our plant the impacts will be catastrophic for humanity, it is not enough to simply reach net zero emissions as many of the natural climate stabilisation systems have begun to fail and degrade and are now driving warming (for example the loss of Arctic ice, loss of our soil carbon, burning of forest globally and melting of the permafrost) .
Unless we create a global cooling these systems will continue to degrade and will keep the world warming (for example the now melting arctic permafrost will add twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere than we as humans have released to date.)
Cooling the planet by reversing global warming is now our only option if we want to avoid catastrophic temperature rises.
What is required to reverse global warming?
There are three key things we need to achieve at emergency speed to reverse cool the planet and avert climate catastrophe:
- achieve zero emissions across all sectors (10 years or less)*
- drawdown excess carbon dioxide using all appropriate available means, returning CO2 near to pre-industrial levels (under 300PPM)
- create an immediate cooling in the short term. There are different methods for this which have different consequences and cost to implement, however, an immediate cooling of some sort is necessary because we otherwise risk spiralling into catastrophic climate change. We are already geo-engineering around 0.8C of cooling via increased albedo or global dimming, caused by burnt fossil fuel particulates. At the very least, this level of cooling will need to be replaced as we stop burning coal and other particulate creating fossil fuels.
*note this is not "net" zero emissions but a true zero or as close to zero emissions as we can get. Net zero by 2050 is far from an ambitious goal: it is a goal designed to delay how soon we abandon fossil fuels.
|
“We are rapidly reaching the point of no return for the planet. We face a triple environmental emergency – biodiversity loss, climate disruption and escalating pollution. (…) Science tells us these next ten years are our final chance to avert a climate catastrophe, turn back the deadly tide of pollution and end species loss.” ~ Antonio Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General, speaking to the world on 5 June 2021, World Environment Day |
How is the response needed possible?
Such an response is only possible under an emergency scenario where business as usual stops and the climate emergency is prioritised. This is sometimes referred to as a mobilisation akin to a war-time mobilisation. The first step would be to pass appropriate Climate Emergency and Mobilisation Act that restructures governance to prioritise the what we need to do.
Think tanks, such as Beyond Zero Emissions and ClimateWorks have been developing detailed Australian transition plans for difference sectors for over a decade now. Relevant plans would be implemented.
Different costings have been provided but the reality is, the Australian governments create money as they need it, as we have seen with the COVID-19 response. We would not experience inflation until that money does not have work to do, and being in emergency mode creates more jobs than we are probably able to fill. Read more here.
Of course, this is just Australia, which only accounts for about 2% of global emissions, over 4% if you take into account our coal exports. But it's well past time Australia led. Australian has the highest per capita emissions globally and has undermined stronger action globally at every global climate summit in the past 20 years. First we prevented stronger action alongside the US and Japan, and now alongside Russia and Saudi Arabia.
We could just give up, but why would we do that when when there is everything to lose, and all that stands in our way is a concentration of fossil fuel interests and their politicians? We have the solutions; the biggest risk is lack of ambition. Just one country needs to do what’s necessary before others follow suit. Australia is in the best position to fill this leadership vacuum.
Read more at Breakthrough (scroll through):
Such an response is only possible under an emergency scenario where business as usual stops and the climate emergency is prioritised. This is sometimes referred to as a mobilisation akin to a war-time mobilisation. The first step would be to pass appropriate Climate Emergency and Mobilisation Act that restructures governance to prioritise the what we need to do.
Think tanks, such as Beyond Zero Emissions and ClimateWorks have been developing detailed Australian transition plans for difference sectors for over a decade now. Relevant plans would be implemented.
Different costings have been provided but the reality is, the Australian governments create money as they need it, as we have seen with the COVID-19 response. We would not experience inflation until that money does not have work to do, and being in emergency mode creates more jobs than we are probably able to fill. Read more here.
Of course, this is just Australia, which only accounts for about 2% of global emissions, over 4% if you take into account our coal exports. But it's well past time Australia led. Australian has the highest per capita emissions globally and has undermined stronger action globally at every global climate summit in the past 20 years. First we prevented stronger action alongside the US and Japan, and now alongside Russia and Saudi Arabia.
We could just give up, but why would we do that when when there is everything to lose, and all that stands in our way is a concentration of fossil fuel interests and their politicians? We have the solutions; the biggest risk is lack of ambition. Just one country needs to do what’s necessary before others follow suit. Australia is in the best position to fill this leadership vacuum.
Read more at Breakthrough (scroll through):
