by Alex Evans | Apr 30, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity
Lots of media coverage today of a special edition of Nature that’s just been published, and in particular on two articles that discuss what it will take to limit global average warming to 2 degrees C.
The headline finding that most of the press coverage runs with is that the total, cumulative carbon budget that the world can emit without hitting catastrophic tipping points is estimated at 1 trillion tonnes of carbon – and that we’ve already used up half of this. What’s more, as Wired notes, at present we’re sending another 9 billion tonnes of carbon up into the air each year – meaning that on present rates, we’re going to hit the buffers within half a century.
So, according to the authors of the studies, we need to reduce global emissions by around 80% by 2050 – quite some distance more demanding a target than the 50% by 2050 target that the G8 has committed to, though in line with Obama’s headline objective. (As I noted here back in 2007, the G8 should have known better than to take 50% as their headline global target – which rested on a rather optimistic interpretation of figures set out in the last IPCC assessment report.)
One thing that confused me in the two Nature articles, though, was this point – summed up on Real Climate (emphasis added):
Both [articles] find that the most directly relevant quantity is the total amount of CO2 ultimately released, rather than a target atmospheric CO2 concentration or emission rate. This is an extremely useful result, giving us a clear statement of how our policy goals should be framed. We have a total emission quota; if we keep going now, we will have to cut back more quickly later.
Needless to say, the question of what metric we use to measure success on climate change is a very big deal, given the extent of policy implications that flow from it. So are the authors right to suggest that instead of aiming for a target CO2 concentration level, we should be focusing primarily on cumulative emissions?
Well, by way of comparison of the different metrics, think of the atmosphere as a bath-tub and CO2 as water. Too much water, and the bath will overflow (as we start hitting buffers, tipping points, positive feedbacks, abrupt climate change and other Bad Things). In this metaphor:
- Emissions = the amount of water flowing into the bath
- Sinks (the amount of CO2 soaked up by oceans, forests etc.) = the amount of water flowing out of the plughole
- Concentration levels (how much CO2 or CO2e there is in the air, in parts per million) = the level of water in the bath
Now as Myles Allen, lead author of one of the Nature articles, observes in the Guardian today, it’s clearly true that if cumulative emissions matter more than our current rate of emissions right now. To return to the bath-tub metaphor: if you’re worried about the risk of the bath overflowing, then the question of the rate at which is flowing into the bath is clearly less relevant than the total amount of water that’s flowed into the bath since you turned on the tap.
But what I don’t get is why we should be more interested in cumulative emissions (how much water has flowed into the bath) than in concentration levels (the level of water in the bath).
(more…)
by David Steven | Apr 30, 2009 | What we're watching
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_U17aqfjGs[/youtube]
by David Steven | Apr 29, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity
Avaaz must be delighted with this spoof of Exxon’s climate change ads.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ql38W-vduM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Not only has it raised enough money to show its spot on CNN ($110k at time of publication), it’s already managed to provoke this self-pitying response from Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers:
They seem to be critical of our desire to communicate our positions on climate change, which we don’t understand. If someone chooses to use our approach as a way to generate revenue or to make a point, I guess they’re free to do that.”
Memo to Jeffers: limping around like a harpooned walrus won’t make anyone love you.
by David Steven | Apr 29, 2009 | Influence and networks, UK
In the New York Times, think tanker, James Jay Carafano (areas of expertise: homeland security, defense, military affairs, affairs, post-conflict operations, and counterrorism) gets hot under the collar about “news stories [that] play fast and loose with terms like ‘outbreak,’ ‘epidemic,’ and ‘pandemic.'”
His advice: “We should all just wash our hands and go to the doctor if we have flu symptoms.” Er, wrong. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (area of expertise: public health):
If you get sick with influenza, CDC recommends that you stay home from work or school and limit contact with others to keep from infecting them.
CDC is happy for people to contact their doctor if they need advice, but it only recommends adults seek emergency medical treatment if they have: (i) Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath; (ii) Pain or pressure in the chest or abdomen; (iii) Sudden dizziness; (iv) Confusion; (v) Severe or persistent vomiting. (The advice for children is similar – the list of warning symptoms different.)
In the UK, health authorities are even more explicit about the fact they don’t want people with flu sitting around in doctor’s waiting rooms. “If you have flu-like symptoms and have recently travelled to Mexico or been in contact with someone who has, stay at home and contact either your GP or NHS Direct on 0845 4647,” advises the NHS. Treating people without requiring face-to-face contact with healthcare professionals is at the heart of of the UK’s pandemic flu plan.
Carafano’s sins are minor compared with this preposterous Guardian article by Simon Jenkins (core expertise: frothing at the mouth). According to Jenkins, swine flu is “a panic stoked in order to posture and spend” – with the public too moronic to resist having the wool pulled over its eyes:
We appear to have lost all ability to judge risk. The cause may lie in the national curriculum, the decline of “news” or the rise of blogs and concomitant, unmediated hysteria, but people seem helpless in navigating the gulf that separates public information from their daily round.
The government was “barking mad” to convene its emergency planning committee, Jenkins argues, while the World Health Organization is not really worried – it’s just making a pathetic bid to shore up its funding. Attention-whore doctors, health and safety hysterics, and rapacious drugs companies are all in on the plot, while ‘professional expertise’ (presumably from shrinking violent newspaper columnists) is being completely ignored.
BSE, SARs and avian flu, meanwhile, provide cast iron assurance that no pandemic is on the way. (more…)
by Richard Gowan | Apr 29, 2009 | North America
Just think, if it had all gone a bit differently – well, a few million votes differently – we’d be celebrating 100 days of McCain/Palin. As it is, the Wasilla Frontiersman (the paper of record in Palin’s erstwhile hometown) keeps us up-to-date on the not-veep’s activities:
Gov. Sarah Palin is encouraging Alaskans to sign up again this year for a six-week physical activity competition, and win it again.
Starting this Friday, adults and children can sign up for the National President’s Challenge, sponsored by the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Alaska had 2,868 people participate last year. That was the highest participation rate per capita among all the states. Alaska took top honors.
Recent surveys show that about 65 percent of Alaska adults are overweight or obese.
Keep up the good work, Governor. In the meantime, as we’re unlikely to be returning to the Frontiersman soon, here’s a quick run-down of its top stories right now:
Ah, the Palin Nation we so nearly were…
