Global Climate Change Planetary Emergency
15 May 2018 UN Sec. General says climate change is an 'existential threat' to most life on the planet, including and especially humankind, UN chief warns global summit, and the age of fossil fuels must be ended.
VIDEO of the historic statement by UN Secretary-General António Guterres
Locked in commitment is over 1.5C by 2021 and over 2C at full
equilibrium warming (long after 2100) Jan 2021 research
equilibrium warming (long after 2100) Jan 2021 research
. 11 Dec 202010 myths about net zero targets and carbon offsetting, busted by experts
The June 2021 leaked IPCC report (WG2 Impacts)- disastrous- Text Video
Jan 2021 Close to to tipping point of land carbon sink
28 July 2021 World Scientists’ Warning Climate Emergency 2021
IPCC 2021 6th assessment (AR6) WG1 Science SPM Government approved
14 Sept 2021 Chatham House Risk Widespread severe impacts, crop losses by 2030 if no rapid emissions decline
This record provides the essential evidence of the dire rapidly deteriorating state of the global climate emergency today, as well as the science basics of the required emergency response for the future survival of Humanity and most life on Earth
At the same time, with only continued emissions forthcoming, as made clear by the obstructive failure of the 2021 Glasgow UN COP 26, this is the evidence of the unprecedented crime against Humanity and Nature, far beyond our 2018 book documenting the unprecedented crime up to that time.
As has been clear for many years, increasing climate change is a threat to the survival of the human race and most life on Earth, and 2°C is the tipping "point of no return" (all detailed here).
Global emissions had to be in decline by 2020,
to avoid 2°C and to give a slim possibility
of the 1.5°C limit.
These scenarios have been pointed out since 2018
in public statements by the UN Secretary General,
Antonio Guterres.
Yet today the globally disastrous 1.5°C surface warming is less than a decade away (2030) and, due to various systemic inertias, the planetary catastrophic 2°C will be reached by 2050, with global heating and its impacts continuing long after that. 2020 research finds that temperature stabilization takes decades after mitigation action.
Having studied, published and recorded the climate change science and policy for the past 20 years, it is my reluctant, considered opinion that today's children (worldwide) are condemned to a terrible life of increasing suffering and miserable deprivation, and that the human race is unlikely survive today's accelerating, unmitigated global climate and oceans disruption. Survival will not be possible if global emissions continue for a few more years.
Here is the evidence of the unprecedentedly evil crime against all today's children, Humanity and Nature. As explained here, there has been no progress on global greenhouse gas emissions reductions (they are still increasing) due to the fossil fuel industry's refusal to switch to the renewable energy business, the ongoing fossil fuel corporation deception and denial campaign, and fossil-fuel-supporting governments that have blocked any agreement to put global emissions into decline under 1992 UN climate change negotiations. The continued subsidizing of the fossil fuel industry by governments is the evil of all evils.
As a result there is no possibility of the current (2021-2022) global emissions increase stopping in the foreseeable future. Today there is no powerful action to change the situation, leaving the fossil fuel industry unstoppable and with that, we face and unprecedented global suffering ending the human race and most life on Earth.
By 2050 or 2°C (unavoidable) global climate change will force 200 million from their homes, and billions of people will be deprived on adequate food and water (IPCC 2018 1.5°C Report chart).
Children
Though it is well known that small children are particularly vulnerable to all health impacts of climate change, and it is estimated that 80% of current global climate change deaths are children, the IPCC 2018 1.5°C report did not assess health impacts on children.
The other, that could have happened years ago is a strong intervention by national science academies and royal societies, necessary since the IPCC understates impacts, is misleading in crucial ways, and neither advises on dangers nor makes specific recommendations (see below).
However, the joint statement to COP26 by national science organizations was disappointingly ineffectual. It did not acknowledge the climate emergency; did not call for immediate global emissions reduction; made no mention of fossil fuels (or any fossil fuel), nor fossil fuel subsidies or carbon pricing, nor other well known specific measures to reduce and reverse emissions; and did not include the state of climate change indicators (including ocean acidification), only referring to emissions, not CO2, methane or nitrous oxide. This was amazing as the IPCC Chair H. Lee had called for immediate global emissions decline at COP25 in 2019 in Madrid. It is also odd because in August of 2021 the Interacademy published a document on the IPCC AR6 WG1 IPCC report confirms need for immediate rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. After the failure of COP26, the future needs a strong, immediate formal intervention from all the national science organizations to their governments with specific recommendations on emissions (as they are mandated to do).
The most important climate science fact of all is that global emissions had to decline immediately and rapidly to avoid a warming of 1.5°C (IPCC Chair 2019), and now to avoid 2°C (IPCC Chair 2021) (since 1.5°C is now out of reach).
For energy, that means that all fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) have to be rapidly and totally replaced by zero-carbon-combustion renewable (endless) energies. Zero carbon combustion means no biomass/wood burning for energy, and no biofuels, which are all net carbon sources (CO2 and methane/CH4).
Nothing can avoid global climate catastrophe without this rapid reduction in emissions -- no other mitigation measures, no adaptation, no CO2 removal, and certainly no artificial cooling of the planet.
Merely stopping further fossil fuel projects, and stopping the increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, cannot prevent global catastrophe.
The atmospheric GHG levels and degree of global warming are so high that all gases have to be put into rapid decline, not just CO2 (IPCC 2021).
Mitigation "solutions" can only be appreciated in today's context of globally unprecedented disastrous impacts at a now unavoidable 1.5°C and end-of-the-world feedback runaway global heating, triggered at 2°C (projected by 2050).
As the IPCC 2021 AR6 WG1 made abundantly clear, the world has entered the state of multiple disastrous climate impacts affecting all regions. Climate change is far beyond risk and far beyond dangerous climate interference (1992 UN climate change convention). Years ago, because of great inertias in the climate system and for socio-economic change, scientists warned we could not wait for impacts to act; it would then be too late.
The main reason for inaction is the fossil fuel industry's dangerous climate change denial campaign, the long history of US corporate deception and denial of their products' hazards to pubic health (e.g., cigarettes), leading to the greatest deception and lie of all, climate change denial (documented by Naomi Oreskes in her 2010 book, Merchants of Doubt, written with Erik M. Conway). Since then, investigative journalists have complied a mountain of evidence proving how the fossil fuel industry has fought against the climate change truth and obstructed measures to prevent climate catastrophe, to keep making fossil fuel profits.
In 201, Oreskes co-authored an online short read How the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled Americans about climate change.
The global temperature increase is abrupt and unprecedented and, at committed warming, will be increasing ten times faster than over the past 65 million years. This speed of global warming both exacerbates disastrous climate change impacts on vital ecosystems and compromises adaptation.
Warming is much higher today than in the past 10,000 years of agriculture, higher than in the past 100,000 years, and at 2°C will be higher than in the past million years.
The global climate emergency is now widely recognized and confirmed by science, yet world governments and leading national institutions are failing to take global emergency action or even call for emergency action.
Atmospheric CO2 is responsible for 65% of global heating and 100% of ocean acidification. It lasts in the atmosphere for 300 to 1000 years. Since 1750, atmospheric CO2 has increased almost 50% -- the highest in over 3 million years and its rate of increase 100 times faster than normal end of ice age natural warming. The rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is unprecedented over the past record going back 40 million years (WMO).
All climate system change indicators are increasing as fast as -- and several faster than -- ever, while national government policies reject any effective mitigation as they permit, subsidize and push even more fossil fuel extraction (e.g., COP26). The US EIA October 2021 states that "if current policy and technology trends continue, global energy consumption and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions will increase through 2050," projected to increase from 34 billion tonnes/year in 2020 to 43 billion a year in 2050. Today there is no prospect of this changing, and no powerful global movement to make it change.
This is the worst-case scenario, which, without powerful intervention, especially considering the many enormous sources of amplifying feedback, inevitably leads to a ghastly future, a struggle to survive on a hostile planet in rapid irreversible decline for today's children, the demise of Humanity, and the annihilation of most life on Earth. By any moral or ethical standard, this is a situation of unprecedented evil.
Since the IPCC 1.5°C Report (2018), there has been universal agreement that 1.5°C is the danger limit (though by the climate science it is now absolutely unavoidable), yet world governments and leading national institutions are saying the limit is still possible, an absurd falsehood that detracts from the extent of the emergency and the imperative of immediate powerful action.
Terrifying though they are (and should be), the emergency is worse than the science assessments indicate. Reasons include IPCC projections only going to 2100, a number of large source amplifying feedbacks not included in projections, incomplete and misleading carbon budgets of more carbon to burn, and the assumption that there exists the capacity to remove and secure very large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Nevertheless it was clear back in the IPCC 2007 IPCC AR4 that rapid global emissions reductions were essential for climate safety, and that was definite in the 2015 AR5 with emissions decline by 2020 to stay below 2°C (only in the best-case RCP.2.6 scenario- and only by 2100). Were it not for the evil climate change denial campaign launched by the fossil fuel industry in 1989, climate change would have been stopped many years ago. Their opposition to rapid mitigation continues to this day.
Today the challenge is avoiding biosphere collapse, for which immediate emissions decline is imperative -- and this now has to apply to all countries.
Provided they are given financing (as the 1992 climate change convention required), it is easier for developing countries to convert to zero-combustion energy than the long industrialized (via fossil fuels) developed nations. The idea (today) that justice requires allowing developing countries more time to burn more fossil fuels is a great irrational injustice, because global emissions have to be near zero for all Humanity, and developing countries are the most climate change vulnerable.
Without rapid drastic revolutionary change to the world economy, our children "face a bleak future" (worldwide) and "we will be investing in our own extinction" (UN COP26).
Denying the dangerousness of climate change or promoting more fossil fuel use is an unprecedented crime of all time -- and against all Humanity. inter Our standard of the worst evil is Nazi holocaust murdering an estimated six million Jewish citizens of Europe. Today fossil fuel air pollution kills 10 million every year for fossil fuel corporate profits (below) which has to be a crime against humanity. In the past 10 years 100 million have been killed from fossil fuel air pollution, when all fossil fuel energy could have replaced by well known non polluting energy sources. Whole island communities are being forced fro their homes, there homes and land being destroyed as sea levels rise (Rome Statute, Article 7. 1. d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population". The destruction of their islands is absolutely unavoidable due to committed sea level rise for many centuries. Although it is further into the same inevitable destruction applies to coastal communities. In 2019, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) calculated that weather-related disasters displaced almost 24 million people—almost three times more than those displaced by conflict in the same year, underpinned by some of the first sudden-onset events to have tangible ties to climate change. Research published 2019 concluded that an 110 million people will be displaced by sea level rise flooding with warming of 2 °C, which is projected for 2045. Climate change could force 216 million people from their homes by 2050 (Sept 2021, World Bank).
It is deplorable All governments have fought the legal pleadings by youth groups for effective mitigation. In most cases the Courts have agreed with evidence, but rejected the claim- (public trust doctrine) saying it was a political, not legal matter. The fossil fuel corporations, banks governments and courts have written off the lives of today's children and all future generations.
Continued Fossil combustion pushed by fossil fuel corporations governments today is an unprecenteded evil by any ethical or moral basis, Fossil fuel air pollution, in addition to atmospheric greenhouse pollution, is leading to 10 million deaths a year. Current government policies lead to surface heating about 3°C by 2065, and continuing higher after that. Crop yields have long been projected to be in decline for all crops in all regions at 3°C, putting fossil fuel future deaths in the billions.
Major greenhouse gas sources are fossil fuel combustion, industrial age food production, with feedbacks treated as major potential additional catastrophic sources.
The single most catastrophic global warming effect is multiple feedback runaway climate change, a rapidly increasing risk today with emissions increasing. Yet this is not recognized as a risk by the IPCC.
There are many very large sources of amplifying (i.e., positive) feedbacks that include tipping point global warming effects. One feedback and tipping point passed is the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, which since 1980 has declined 30% and its thickness by 95%. Sea ice volume (thickness) continues to decline at a rapid linear rate.
Another well known tipping point and enormous feedback source is the Amazon, which is close to its tipping point, now emitting more GHGs than it absorbs, while deforestation continues apace. If deforestation is not stopped and if global emissions are not declined fast, the Amazon will be lost.
The most and the largest amplifying feedbacks are in the Arctic. Arctic permafrost alone holds double the atmospheric carbon. Arctic warming is accelerating, now warming at three times the global rate. Rapidly thawing permafrost is releasing feedback emissions of methane, CO2 and nitrous oxide. Arctic methane (80 x CO2 effect) has a huge potential for boosting global warming. Due to Arctic feedback emissions of methane and CO2, the Arctic has switched from a carbon sink to source (NOAA 2016, confirmed 2019).
All amplifying feedbacks are operant, and continuing emissions will trigger the runaway effect of multiple inter-reinforcing feedbacks.
The climate system alone absolutely commits the world to 1.5°C (2030) and above 2°C long term equilibrium warming. Current policies puts the world at about 3°C this century, higher after 2100. The temperature projections do not include extra warming at 2°C from amplifying feedbacks, though the effect of feedbacks will be positive, thereby amplifying warming (IPCC AR5 2014).
The present IPCC model projections do not include the extra warming from the large sources of amplifying feedback, calling them "uncertainties." The last IPCC assessment to address the extra warming was the 2007 4th assessment, that put extra warming at another 30% and above another 1°C by 2100. For the A2 scenario, for example, the climate-carbon cycle feedback increases the corresponding global average warming at 2100 by more than 1°C. All models that treat the coupling of the carbon cycle to climate change indicate a positive feedback effect with warming acting to suppress land and ocean uptake of CO2, leading to larger atmospheric CO2 increases and greater climate change for a given emissions scenario (AR6 Working Group 1, p.77). Climate-carbon cycle feedback, model studies suggest, add another 30% of cumulative CO2 projections (p. 16). The 2015 AR5 said feedbacks this century will be positive, i.e., amplifying. From 2021 AR6 WG1, "The fraction of emissions taken up by land and ocean is expected to decline as the CO2 concentration increases, having weakened in the past decade" (AR6 WG1 FAQ 5.1). "The net response of natural CH4 and N2O sources to future warming will be increased emissions." "Thawing terrestrial permafrost will lead to carbon release (high confidence) (IPCC AR6 WG1 Ch 4).
Extreme weather events, the most dangerous climate change impacts to populations and to crops, are increasing in all regions -- driven by GHG emissions (IPCC) and will continue to increase in frequency and severity so long as emissions continue. That is heat waves, forest fires, drought, severe storms, and floods.
The IPCC 2007 AR4 (WG1 SPM.73) found that "heat waves have been increasing for the latter part of the 20th century, and are projected to increase globally and over most regions. In a future climate, heat waves are expected to be more intense, longer lasting and more frequent. Future increases in temperature extremes are projected to follow increases in mean temperature over most of the world." Also, more intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation has contributed to changes in drought (p. 8), all confirmed in 2021 by AR6 WG1. A 2020 UK analysis of 23 days of exceptional extreme heat showed an excess mortality 2,556 deaths. There are even Arctic heat waves and marine heat waves.
But extreme heat is worse than realized. With climate change the deadly effect of heat is compounded by humanity. The most deadly impact is the called wet-bulb temperature affecting hot and humid regions, increased as the equatorial region expands and water vapor content of the air increases. This is projected to render large increasing regions of the planet uninhabitable. The most recent of several papers is the 2019 PNAS Trends in surface equivalent potential temperature: A more comprehensive metric for global warming
The UN (COP) climate negotiating process is set up to fail by countries instructed that consensus requires total or virtual unanimity in the voting for major matters, giving the fossil industry (via fossil pushing countries) in effect a veto over any agreement to rapidly reduce or phase out fossil fuels (as was demonstrated at COP26). So as this pertains there can be no UN agreement to rapidly reduce emissions.
WTO model free-trade agreements put profit over environmental protection and allow corporations power to sue governments (dispute process) in such issues. This is a powerful deterrent to governments acting to protect the environment.
The WTO has to correct this, putting life preserving global environmental protection above corporate profit
OCEANS GHG emissions are heating, acidifying and deoxygenating the oceans, at an accelerating rate, on track for an ocean tipping point collapse, a lethal combination for the future of all life.
2°C is planet catastrophe: the coral reefs are dead, the Amazon and tropical rainforests have died back (collapsed), most crops yields are declining and runaway feedbacks have been triggered
This includes irreversible self sustaining permafrost thaw (holds 2X atmospheric carbon) , which is emitting feedback methane, CO2 and nitrous oxide ( IPCC classified three main long-lived GHGs)
The 2021 Glasgow COP 26 and rapid post Covid-19 emissions rebound shows governments have no intention of putting global emissions into decline.
The decades long confusions prevarications and delays means it is now impossible to avoid disastrously dangerous climate system interference (1992 UNFCCC) because 1.5°C by 2030 is inevitable. As a result targets (they have achieved nothing but delay) no longer matter. What matters is simply applying the economic instruments that we have known for decades- immediately.
This requires a large wealth GHG pollution tax
The natural gas industry is not a bridge to zero carbon because gas emits CO2 when burnt and the industry is a big methane emitter
Fossil fuels subsidies ($5.9 Trillion a year by IMF) are an unprecedented evil which for the survival of Humanity have to be terminated right away and shifted to non combustion energy development
Tax credits to GHG polluting fossil fuel industries (including carbon capture storage) cannot be permitted.
CO2 and long-lived, constantly emitted GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere, so have to (can) be totally replaced by conversions to non polluting sources-"less" or "lower" is not good enough for climate and ocean stabilization
Conversions include energy production, transport, food production/diet, construction (steel/concrete to wood)
Air transport should revert to water, and ships powered by compact fission reactors like the US Navy (for decades). Only essential air flights.
To stabilize climate and oceans GHG emissions drop to near zero (IPCC 2014).
Surface Ozone (O3) A largely ignored but dangerous GHG is tropospheric (surface) ozone formed by a chemical reaction of fossil fuel air pollutants (incl. methane) catalyzed by lower atmosphere warmth, and so its concentration increases with global warming- which increases warming. It is toxic to human and plant health, including food crops, so will increase damage to crops as surface temperature increases. Its concentration is increasing in the northern hemisphere. Reduction of ozone precursor methane emissions will be beneficial for human and plant health.
Net zero has now taken over emissions policy replacing actual emissions reduction. As is well known The 2018 IPCC 1.5°C report showed global emissions have to reduced by 45% by 2030 (compared to 2010). This still stands as mitigation for 1.5°C- 2°C. The best case mitigation scenario of the 2018 IPCC 1.5C Report (P1) has fossil fuel emissions near zero as does the 2021 Internationals Energy Agency's 2050 net zero report. However, planned fossil fuel production by 2030 is more than double the 1.5°C limit 45% more than for 2°C (Production Gap report).
At the same time, with only continued emissions forthcoming, as made clear by the obstructive failure of the 2021 Glasgow UN COP 26, this is the evidence of the unprecedented crime against Humanity and Nature, far beyond our 2018 book documenting the unprecedented crime up to that time.
As has been clear for many years, increasing climate change is a threat to the survival of the human race and most life on Earth, and 2°C is the tipping "point of no return" (all detailed here).
Global emissions had to be in decline by 2020,
to avoid 2°C and to give a slim possibility
of the 1.5°C limit.
These scenarios have been pointed out since 2018
in public statements by the UN Secretary General,
Antonio Guterres.
Yet today the globally disastrous 1.5°C surface warming is less than a decade away (2030) and, due to various systemic inertias, the planetary catastrophic 2°C will be reached by 2050, with global heating and its impacts continuing long after that. 2020 research finds that temperature stabilization takes decades after mitigation action.
Having studied, published and recorded the climate change science and policy for the past 20 years, it is my reluctant, considered opinion that today's children (worldwide) are condemned to a terrible life of increasing suffering and miserable deprivation, and that the human race is unlikely survive today's accelerating, unmitigated global climate and oceans disruption. Survival will not be possible if global emissions continue for a few more years.
Here is the evidence of the unprecedentedly evil crime against all today's children, Humanity and Nature. As explained here, there has been no progress on global greenhouse gas emissions reductions (they are still increasing) due to the fossil fuel industry's refusal to switch to the renewable energy business, the ongoing fossil fuel corporation deception and denial campaign, and fossil-fuel-supporting governments that have blocked any agreement to put global emissions into decline under 1992 UN climate change negotiations. The continued subsidizing of the fossil fuel industry by governments is the evil of all evils.
As a result there is no possibility of the current (2021-2022) global emissions increase stopping in the foreseeable future. Today there is no powerful action to change the situation, leaving the fossil fuel industry unstoppable and with that, we face and unprecedented global suffering ending the human race and most life on Earth.
By 2050 or 2°C (unavoidable) global climate change will force 200 million from their homes, and billions of people will be deprived on adequate food and water (IPCC 2018 1.5°C Report chart).
Children
Though it is well known that small children are particularly vulnerable to all health impacts of climate change, and it is estimated that 80% of current global climate change deaths are children, the IPCC 2018 1.5°C report did not assess health impacts on children.
From the IPCC 2014 AR5: K.R. Smith et al. (2014) concluded that climate change will exacerbate current levels of childhood undernutrition and stunting through reduced food availability. As well, climate change can drive undernutrition-related childhood mortality, and increase disability-adjusted life years lost, with the largest risks in Asia and Africa
AR5 FAQ 11.1 | “While the direct health effects of extreme weather events receive great attention, climate change mainly harms human health by exacerbating existing disease burdens and negative impacts on daily life among those with the weakest health protection systems, and with the least capacity to adapt. Thus, most assessments indicate that poor and disenfranchised groups will bear the most risk and, globally, the greatest burden will fall on poor countries, particularly on poor children, who are most affected today by such climate-related diseases as malaria, undernutrition, and diarrhea. However, the diverse and global effects of climate change mean that higher income populations may also be affected by extreme events, emerging risks, and the spread of impacts from more vulnerable populations.” A 2020 paper describes how Catastrophic effects of climate change on children’s health start before birth Meanwhile this is our website page https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/children
I can think of only three things could save the situation, but none are immediate. The UN Conferences of the Parties to the 1992 climate convention (COPs) will, not save us because all countries have to agree to the major decisions.
MOBILIZATION
The most success organization for governments, cities and public is The Climate Mobilization in the States
Public Protest Mobilization
One hope to change the situation is a massive sustained mobilization of global citizens' protest, but there is no sign of such and the full truth is hidden from the public. In a 2021 report on US citizens concerns, climate change was number 10. False hope solutions for the emergency get much attention. Extinction Rebellion is the closest thing there is, but today its numbers are far too small to prevail on the immediate time scale.
Legal Intervention
Another is legal intervention, but current legal cases against fossil fuel corporations and governments have not made any difference, and are being fought by both fossil fuel corporations and governments, including the cases for the rights of young people.
Crime Against Humanity
It should be obvious that increasing greenhouse gas emissions to day is an unprecedently evil crime against all Humanity (fossil air pollution alone is killing 10 million people every year), and by a common sense reading of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute continued emissions constitutes an unprecedented crime against Humanity. By 2050 climate change will force 200 million their homes ( Rome Statute) Article 7. 1. d. Billions of people will be deprived on adequate food and water (IPCC 2018 1.5C Report).
Africa: climate change economic genocide
Past IPCC assessments show that UN climate convention Annex 1 well of governments knew that the poorer regions of the tropics and Africa would suffer declines in food production at low degrees of climate change, but believed that they would benefit from higher food production. While not reversing their emissions they proposed that the most food insecure would just have to import more food from Annex 1 countries (IPCC 2007 AR4 Food) It is also on the record that years ago the poor most vulnerable countries argued (UN) for the global temperature limit to be lowered from 2C to 1.5C, because they could not survive 2C UN COPs). This was given consideration at the 2009 COP, but only included as a limit in the 2015 Paris Agreement. This why climate change has been described as economic climate genocide to Africa (2014 Genocidal risk and climate change: Africa in the twenty-first century . 2015 Climate Change and Genocide. 2016 From Global Warming to Genocide Warning: Climate Change and Mass Atrocities . 2019 The Looming Accelerant: the Growing Links between Climate Change, Mass Atrocities, and Genocide .
Significantly the war based world economy is a major driver of global climate change Does Climate Change Cause Conflict? . Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War . Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history . Also, "climate change increases conflict ... by amplifying well-documented drivers of conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks Multiple lines of evidence relate climate variability to these forms of conflict' (IPCC 2015 AR5 WG2 SPM...19)
I can think of only three things could save the situation, but none are immediate. The UN Conferences of the Parties to the 1992 climate convention (COPs) will, not save us because all countries have to agree to the major decisions.
MOBILIZATION
The most success organization for governments, cities and public is The Climate Mobilization in the States
Public Protest Mobilization
One hope to change the situation is a massive sustained mobilization of global citizens' protest, but there is no sign of such and the full truth is hidden from the public. In a 2021 report on US citizens concerns, climate change was number 10. False hope solutions for the emergency get much attention. Extinction Rebellion is the closest thing there is, but today its numbers are far too small to prevail on the immediate time scale.
Legal Intervention
Another is legal intervention, but current legal cases against fossil fuel corporations and governments have not made any difference, and are being fought by both fossil fuel corporations and governments, including the cases for the rights of young people.
Crime Against Humanity
It should be obvious that increasing greenhouse gas emissions to day is an unprecedently evil crime against all Humanity (fossil air pollution alone is killing 10 million people every year), and by a common sense reading of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute continued emissions constitutes an unprecedented crime against Humanity. By 2050 climate change will force 200 million their homes ( Rome Statute) Article 7. 1. d. Billions of people will be deprived on adequate food and water (IPCC 2018 1.5C Report).
Africa: climate change economic genocide
Past IPCC assessments show that UN climate convention Annex 1 well of governments knew that the poorer regions of the tropics and Africa would suffer declines in food production at low degrees of climate change, but believed that they would benefit from higher food production. While not reversing their emissions they proposed that the most food insecure would just have to import more food from Annex 1 countries (IPCC 2007 AR4 Food) It is also on the record that years ago the poor most vulnerable countries argued (UN) for the global temperature limit to be lowered from 2C to 1.5C, because they could not survive 2C UN COPs). This was given consideration at the 2009 COP, but only included as a limit in the 2015 Paris Agreement. This why climate change has been described as economic climate genocide to Africa (2014 Genocidal risk and climate change: Africa in the twenty-first century . 2015 Climate Change and Genocide. 2016 From Global Warming to Genocide Warning: Climate Change and Mass Atrocities . 2019 The Looming Accelerant: the Growing Links between Climate Change, Mass Atrocities, and Genocide .
Significantly the war based world economy is a major driver of global climate change Does Climate Change Cause Conflict? . Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War . Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history . Also, "climate change increases conflict ... by amplifying well-documented drivers of conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks Multiple lines of evidence relate climate variability to these forms of conflict' (IPCC 2015 AR5 WG2 SPM...19)
The other, that could have happened years ago is a strong intervention by national science academies and royal societies, necessary since the IPCC understates impacts, is misleading in crucial ways, and neither advises on dangers nor makes specific recommendations (see below).
However, the joint statement to COP26 by national science organizations was disappointingly ineffectual. It did not acknowledge the climate emergency; did not call for immediate global emissions reduction; made no mention of fossil fuels (or any fossil fuel), nor fossil fuel subsidies or carbon pricing, nor other well known specific measures to reduce and reverse emissions; and did not include the state of climate change indicators (including ocean acidification), only referring to emissions, not CO2, methane or nitrous oxide. This was amazing as the IPCC Chair H. Lee had called for immediate global emissions decline at COP25 in 2019 in Madrid. It is also odd because in August of 2021 the Interacademy published a document on the IPCC AR6 WG1 IPCC report confirms need for immediate rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. After the failure of COP26, the future needs a strong, immediate formal intervention from all the national science organizations to their governments with specific recommendations on emissions (as they are mandated to do).
The most important climate science fact of all is that global emissions had to decline immediately and rapidly to avoid a warming of 1.5°C (IPCC Chair 2019), and now to avoid 2°C (IPCC Chair 2021) (since 1.5°C is now out of reach).
For energy, that means that all fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) have to be rapidly and totally replaced by zero-carbon-combustion renewable (endless) energies. Zero carbon combustion means no biomass/wood burning for energy, and no biofuels, which are all net carbon sources (CO2 and methane/CH4).
Nothing can avoid global climate catastrophe without this rapid reduction in emissions -- no other mitigation measures, no adaptation, no CO2 removal, and certainly no artificial cooling of the planet.
Merely stopping further fossil fuel projects, and stopping the increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, cannot prevent global catastrophe.
The atmospheric GHG levels and degree of global warming are so high that all gases have to be put into rapid decline, not just CO2 (IPCC 2021).
Mitigation "solutions" can only be appreciated in today's context of globally unprecedented disastrous impacts at a now unavoidable 1.5°C and end-of-the-world feedback runaway global heating, triggered at 2°C (projected by 2050).
As the IPCC 2021 AR6 WG1 made abundantly clear, the world has entered the state of multiple disastrous climate impacts affecting all regions. Climate change is far beyond risk and far beyond dangerous climate interference (1992 UN climate change convention). Years ago, because of great inertias in the climate system and for socio-economic change, scientists warned we could not wait for impacts to act; it would then be too late.
The main reason for inaction is the fossil fuel industry's dangerous climate change denial campaign, the long history of US corporate deception and denial of their products' hazards to pubic health (e.g., cigarettes), leading to the greatest deception and lie of all, climate change denial (documented by Naomi Oreskes in her 2010 book, Merchants of Doubt, written with Erik M. Conway). Since then, investigative journalists have complied a mountain of evidence proving how the fossil fuel industry has fought against the climate change truth and obstructed measures to prevent climate catastrophe, to keep making fossil fuel profits.
In 201, Oreskes co-authored an online short read How the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled Americans about climate change.
The global temperature increase is abrupt and unprecedented and, at committed warming, will be increasing ten times faster than over the past 65 million years. This speed of global warming both exacerbates disastrous climate change impacts on vital ecosystems and compromises adaptation.
Warming is much higher today than in the past 10,000 years of agriculture, higher than in the past 100,000 years, and at 2°C will be higher than in the past million years.
The global climate emergency is now widely recognized and confirmed by science, yet world governments and leading national institutions are failing to take global emergency action or even call for emergency action.
Atmospheric CO2 is responsible for 65% of global heating and 100% of ocean acidification. It lasts in the atmosphere for 300 to 1000 years. Since 1750, atmospheric CO2 has increased almost 50% -- the highest in over 3 million years and its rate of increase 100 times faster than normal end of ice age natural warming. The rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is unprecedented over the past record going back 40 million years (WMO).
All climate system change indicators are increasing as fast as -- and several faster than -- ever, while national government policies reject any effective mitigation as they permit, subsidize and push even more fossil fuel extraction (e.g., COP26). The US EIA October 2021 states that "if current policy and technology trends continue, global energy consumption and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions will increase through 2050," projected to increase from 34 billion tonnes/year in 2020 to 43 billion a year in 2050. Today there is no prospect of this changing, and no powerful global movement to make it change.
This is the worst-case scenario, which, without powerful intervention, especially considering the many enormous sources of amplifying feedback, inevitably leads to a ghastly future, a struggle to survive on a hostile planet in rapid irreversible decline for today's children, the demise of Humanity, and the annihilation of most life on Earth. By any moral or ethical standard, this is a situation of unprecedented evil.
Since the IPCC 1.5°C Report (2018), there has been universal agreement that 1.5°C is the danger limit (though by the climate science it is now absolutely unavoidable), yet world governments and leading national institutions are saying the limit is still possible, an absurd falsehood that detracts from the extent of the emergency and the imperative of immediate powerful action.
Terrifying though they are (and should be), the emergency is worse than the science assessments indicate. Reasons include IPCC projections only going to 2100, a number of large source amplifying feedbacks not included in projections, incomplete and misleading carbon budgets of more carbon to burn, and the assumption that there exists the capacity to remove and secure very large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Nevertheless it was clear back in the IPCC 2007 IPCC AR4 that rapid global emissions reductions were essential for climate safety, and that was definite in the 2015 AR5 with emissions decline by 2020 to stay below 2°C (only in the best-case RCP.2.6 scenario- and only by 2100). Were it not for the evil climate change denial campaign launched by the fossil fuel industry in 1989, climate change would have been stopped many years ago. Their opposition to rapid mitigation continues to this day.
Today the challenge is avoiding biosphere collapse, for which immediate emissions decline is imperative -- and this now has to apply to all countries.
Provided they are given financing (as the 1992 climate change convention required), it is easier for developing countries to convert to zero-combustion energy than the long industrialized (via fossil fuels) developed nations. The idea (today) that justice requires allowing developing countries more time to burn more fossil fuels is a great irrational injustice, because global emissions have to be near zero for all Humanity, and developing countries are the most climate change vulnerable.
Without rapid drastic revolutionary change to the world economy, our children "face a bleak future" (worldwide) and "we will be investing in our own extinction" (UN COP26).
Denying the dangerousness of climate change or promoting more fossil fuel use is an unprecedented crime of all time -- and against all Humanity. inter Our standard of the worst evil is Nazi holocaust murdering an estimated six million Jewish citizens of Europe. Today fossil fuel air pollution kills 10 million every year for fossil fuel corporate profits (below) which has to be a crime against humanity. In the past 10 years 100 million have been killed from fossil fuel air pollution, when all fossil fuel energy could have replaced by well known non polluting energy sources. Whole island communities are being forced fro their homes, there homes and land being destroyed as sea levels rise (Rome Statute, Article 7. 1. d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population". The destruction of their islands is absolutely unavoidable due to committed sea level rise for many centuries. Although it is further into the same inevitable destruction applies to coastal communities. In 2019, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) calculated that weather-related disasters displaced almost 24 million people—almost three times more than those displaced by conflict in the same year, underpinned by some of the first sudden-onset events to have tangible ties to climate change. Research published 2019 concluded that an 110 million people will be displaced by sea level rise flooding with warming of 2 °C, which is projected for 2045. Climate change could force 216 million people from their homes by 2050 (Sept 2021, World Bank).
It is deplorable All governments have fought the legal pleadings by youth groups for effective mitigation. In most cases the Courts have agreed with evidence, but rejected the claim- (public trust doctrine) saying it was a political, not legal matter. The fossil fuel corporations, banks governments and courts have written off the lives of today's children and all future generations.
Continued Fossil combustion pushed by fossil fuel corporations governments today is an unprecenteded evil by any ethical or moral basis, Fossil fuel air pollution, in addition to atmospheric greenhouse pollution, is leading to 10 million deaths a year. Current government policies lead to surface heating about 3°C by 2065, and continuing higher after that. Crop yields have long been projected to be in decline for all crops in all regions at 3°C, putting fossil fuel future deaths in the billions.
Major greenhouse gas sources are fossil fuel combustion, industrial age food production, with feedbacks treated as major potential additional catastrophic sources.
The single most catastrophic global warming effect is multiple feedback runaway climate change, a rapidly increasing risk today with emissions increasing. Yet this is not recognized as a risk by the IPCC.
There are many very large sources of amplifying (i.e., positive) feedbacks that include tipping point global warming effects. One feedback and tipping point passed is the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, which since 1980 has declined 30% and its thickness by 95%. Sea ice volume (thickness) continues to decline at a rapid linear rate.
Another well known tipping point and enormous feedback source is the Amazon, which is close to its tipping point, now emitting more GHGs than it absorbs, while deforestation continues apace. If deforestation is not stopped and if global emissions are not declined fast, the Amazon will be lost.
The most and the largest amplifying feedbacks are in the Arctic. Arctic permafrost alone holds double the atmospheric carbon. Arctic warming is accelerating, now warming at three times the global rate. Rapidly thawing permafrost is releasing feedback emissions of methane, CO2 and nitrous oxide. Arctic methane (80 x CO2 effect) has a huge potential for boosting global warming. Due to Arctic feedback emissions of methane and CO2, the Arctic has switched from a carbon sink to source (NOAA 2016, confirmed 2019).
All amplifying feedbacks are operant, and continuing emissions will trigger the runaway effect of multiple inter-reinforcing feedbacks.
The climate system alone absolutely commits the world to 1.5°C (2030) and above 2°C long term equilibrium warming. Current policies puts the world at about 3°C this century, higher after 2100. The temperature projections do not include extra warming at 2°C from amplifying feedbacks, though the effect of feedbacks will be positive, thereby amplifying warming (IPCC AR5 2014).
The present IPCC model projections do not include the extra warming from the large sources of amplifying feedback, calling them "uncertainties." The last IPCC assessment to address the extra warming was the 2007 4th assessment, that put extra warming at another 30% and above another 1°C by 2100. For the A2 scenario, for example, the climate-carbon cycle feedback increases the corresponding global average warming at 2100 by more than 1°C. All models that treat the coupling of the carbon cycle to climate change indicate a positive feedback effect with warming acting to suppress land and ocean uptake of CO2, leading to larger atmospheric CO2 increases and greater climate change for a given emissions scenario (AR6 Working Group 1, p.77). Climate-carbon cycle feedback, model studies suggest, add another 30% of cumulative CO2 projections (p. 16). The 2015 AR5 said feedbacks this century will be positive, i.e., amplifying. From 2021 AR6 WG1, "The fraction of emissions taken up by land and ocean is expected to decline as the CO2 concentration increases, having weakened in the past decade" (AR6 WG1 FAQ 5.1). "The net response of natural CH4 and N2O sources to future warming will be increased emissions." "Thawing terrestrial permafrost will lead to carbon release (high confidence) (IPCC AR6 WG1 Ch 4).
Extreme weather events, the most dangerous climate change impacts to populations and to crops, are increasing in all regions -- driven by GHG emissions (IPCC) and will continue to increase in frequency and severity so long as emissions continue. That is heat waves, forest fires, drought, severe storms, and floods.
The IPCC 2007 AR4 (WG1 SPM.73) found that "heat waves have been increasing for the latter part of the 20th century, and are projected to increase globally and over most regions. In a future climate, heat waves are expected to be more intense, longer lasting and more frequent. Future increases in temperature extremes are projected to follow increases in mean temperature over most of the world." Also, more intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation has contributed to changes in drought (p. 8), all confirmed in 2021 by AR6 WG1. A 2020 UK analysis of 23 days of exceptional extreme heat showed an excess mortality 2,556 deaths. There are even Arctic heat waves and marine heat waves.
But extreme heat is worse than realized. With climate change the deadly effect of heat is compounded by humanity. The most deadly impact is the called wet-bulb temperature affecting hot and humid regions, increased as the equatorial region expands and water vapor content of the air increases. This is projected to render large increasing regions of the planet uninhabitable. The most recent of several papers is the 2019 PNAS Trends in surface equivalent potential temperature: A more comprehensive metric for global warming
and weather extremes
Global warming and climate change are accelerating. J. Hansen, WMO
The 2020 emissions deadline has passed --
and the 1.5°C limit. James Hansen,
global temperature Dec 2021, Jan 2022
Global emissions had to be in decline by 2020
for 1.5°C and 2°C.
Today global greenhouse gas emissions and
atmospheric concentrations are increasing
as fast as ever.
Current policies lead to 2.8°C by 2100 (UNEP 2021),
but this does not include extra warming from
amplifying feedbacks, and warming continues
-- higher after 2100.
On today's policies, globally disastrous 1.5°C will
be reached around 2030,harming the lives of
tens of millions (IPCC chart opposite), but
this is not being
prepared for.
At 1.5°C and above, with increasing climate
change and increasing extreme weather events,
projections indicate harm to crops and
loss of world food security (pdf).
Global warming and climate change are accelerating. J. Hansen, WMO
The 2020 emissions deadline has passed --
and the 1.5°C limit. James Hansen,
global temperature Dec 2021, Jan 2022
Global emissions had to be in decline by 2020
for 1.5°C and 2°C.
Today global greenhouse gas emissions and
atmospheric concentrations are increasing
as fast as ever.
Current policies lead to 2.8°C by 2100 (UNEP 2021),
but this does not include extra warming from
amplifying feedbacks, and warming continues
-- higher after 2100.
On today's policies, globally disastrous 1.5°C will
be reached around 2030,harming the lives of
tens of millions (IPCC chart opposite), but
this is not being
prepared for.
At 1.5°C and above, with increasing climate
change and increasing extreme weather events,
projections indicate harm to crops and
loss of world food security (pdf).
Increasing global emissions today are on track, to a
planet catastrophic 2°C, harming the lives of billions
(chart opposite) by 2050 (IPCC)
The 2015 Paris Agreement only requires countries
to report their GHG emissions. The goal of "Holding
the increase in the global average temperature to
well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing
efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C
above pre-industrial levels" is voluntary, but it (hold)
does not allow overshooting 2°C, as in assessments.
Strong mitigation will slow climate change, possibly stop it increasing but cannot reverse climate change, including the necessary benefits of regenerative agriculture and planting trees.
planet catastrophic 2°C, harming the lives of billions
(chart opposite) by 2050 (IPCC)
The 2015 Paris Agreement only requires countries
to report their GHG emissions. The goal of "Holding
the increase in the global average temperature to
well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing
efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C
above pre-industrial levels" is voluntary, but it (hold)
does not allow overshooting 2°C, as in assessments.
Strong mitigation will slow climate change, possibly stop it increasing but cannot reverse climate change, including the necessary benefits of regenerative agriculture and planting trees.
The UN (COP) climate negotiating process is set up to fail by countries instructed that consensus requires total or virtual unanimity in the voting for major matters, giving the fossil industry (via fossil pushing countries) in effect a veto over any agreement to rapidly reduce or phase out fossil fuels (as was demonstrated at COP26). So as this pertains there can be no UN agreement to rapidly reduce emissions.
WTO model free-trade agreements put profit over environmental protection and allow corporations power to sue governments (dispute process) in such issues. This is a powerful deterrent to governments acting to protect the environment.
The WTO has to correct this, putting life preserving global environmental protection above corporate profit
OCEANS GHG emissions are heating, acidifying and deoxygenating the oceans, at an accelerating rate, on track for an ocean tipping point collapse, a lethal combination for the future of all life.
2°C is planet catastrophe: the coral reefs are dead, the Amazon and tropical rainforests have died back (collapsed), most crops yields are declining and runaway feedbacks have been triggered
This includes irreversible self sustaining permafrost thaw (holds 2X atmospheric carbon) , which is emitting feedback methane, CO2 and nitrous oxide ( IPCC classified three main long-lived GHGs)
The 2021 Glasgow COP 26 and rapid post Covid-19 emissions rebound shows governments have no intention of putting global emissions into decline.
The decades long confusions prevarications and delays means it is now impossible to avoid disastrously dangerous climate system interference (1992 UNFCCC) because 1.5°C by 2030 is inevitable. As a result targets (they have achieved nothing but delay) no longer matter. What matters is simply applying the economic instruments that we have known for decades- immediately.
Today the crucial universally agreed Paris Agreement text is "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels" (Paris Agreement), because it's too late for 1.5C and the world must stop pretending it's not. As the emergency has become worse policy ha been made deceptively weaker.
As in the 2°C limit going back to 1996, this means the long term equilibrium warming, 100s of years after 2100. However since 2009 this has eased by governments to 2°C only by 2100. There is no mention of 2100 in the Paris Agreement. Past calculations for the 2C equilibrium limit is a limit of 400 ppm, requiring Therefore mitigation of unavoidably globally disastrous climate change requires "immediate rapid: (IPCC) fastest global emissions decline. What is the fastest rate of de-carbonization? In its 2019 Gap Report UNEP stated a 7.6% emissions reduction every year between 2020 and 2030, was required to limit global warming to 1.5°C (this century), so this certainly still applies for 2°C equilibrium limit. 10 years to de-carbonization is the fastest published. -in 2016. Because relatively few countries and few corporations emit most of the emissions a rapid emissions reduction is more feasible than is realized (see section below).
As in the 2°C limit going back to 1996, this means the long term equilibrium warming, 100s of years after 2100. However since 2009 this has eased by governments to 2°C only by 2100. There is no mention of 2100 in the Paris Agreement. Past calculations for the 2C equilibrium limit is a limit of 400 ppm, requiring Therefore mitigation of unavoidably globally disastrous climate change requires "immediate rapid: (IPCC) fastest global emissions decline. What is the fastest rate of de-carbonization? In its 2019 Gap Report UNEP stated a 7.6% emissions reduction every year between 2020 and 2030, was required to limit global warming to 1.5°C (this century), so this certainly still applies for 2°C equilibrium limit. 10 years to de-carbonization is the fastest published. -in 2016. Because relatively few countries and few corporations emit most of the emissions a rapid emissions reduction is more feasible than is realized (see section below).
Continued current emissions and policies lead to biosphere collapse with climate and oceans catastrophe
Another reason why rapid emissions reduction is feasible is that simple corrections to the world economics would reverse emissions in short order. The fact that zero carbon energy is now cost competitive with fossil fuels and the sensitivity and power of the market means that Simply the immediate termination of the huge fossil fuel subsides would do so.
The root causes of the global emergency are, the world consumer market economy, government subsidies, investment banks and managers, and consumerism. The 2006 UK Stern Commission The Economics of Climate Change made it clear the cause of climate change is today's economy. Fundamental fatal flaws or errors of economics is causing greenhouse pollution, called market failures by the economists. There is no stopping climate change without first fixing the economics- correcting the market failures. As Stern said over and over "First put a price on carbon".
However there is one huge road block to correcting the world economy to sop GHG pollution- the big global banks. a "Jubilee" forgiving of national debt to corporate banks. Since the 2015 Paris Agreement up to 2021 the world’s 60
Another reason why rapid emissions reduction is feasible is that simple corrections to the world economics would reverse emissions in short order. The fact that zero carbon energy is now cost competitive with fossil fuels and the sensitivity and power of the market means that Simply the immediate termination of the huge fossil fuel subsides would do so.
The root causes of the global emergency are, the world consumer market economy, government subsidies, investment banks and managers, and consumerism. The 2006 UK Stern Commission The Economics of Climate Change made it clear the cause of climate change is today's economy. Fundamental fatal flaws or errors of economics is causing greenhouse pollution, called market failures by the economists. There is no stopping climate change without first fixing the economics- correcting the market failures. As Stern said over and over "First put a price on carbon".
However there is one huge road block to correcting the world economy to sop GHG pollution- the big global banks. a "Jubilee" forgiving of national debt to corporate banks. Since the 2015 Paris Agreement up to 2021 the world’s 60
largest private sector banks financed the fossil fuel industry world-wide with $3.8 trillion. The top financer was JP Moran Chase, for the past five years in a row.
There is another bank related road block. The IMF reports (2021) that total world debt levels, which include government, household and corporate borrowings, rose to a record $226 trillion or 256 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020. Public debt (of governments) now accounts for almost 40 per cent of total global debt, another record high amounting to about a $90 trillion. This also needs correcting for governments to invest in renewable energy infrastructure and not relay on fossil fuel royalties to service their public debt.
Such rational economic corrections could allow the suicidal economics of constant indiscriminate irresponsible economic growth, to change to economic growth limited to climate change mitigation growth only. Rebuilding the world for zero carbon combustion energy as fast as possible would provide a great boost the world economy and employment. Other production has to be zero growth-developing a world industry of refurbish, reuse and recycle.
Investment and financing in more fossil fuels should of course be prohibited.
Achieving a rapid large reduction in emissions is easier than realized because the vast majority of emissions is from a few countries and a few corporations.
The UN finds the country contribution of global emissions contribution of the 100 least-emitting countries is only 3%, while it is 68% from 10 largest greenhouse gas emitters. The top 3 greenhouse gas emitters contribute 16 times the emissions of the lowest emitting 100 countries. 2007 research showed emissions traced to 90 corporate carbon producers contribute ∼57% of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2, and 42–50% of the rise in global mean surface temperature. Furthermore the 2019 National Oil Company Database found national oil companies (NOCs) produce approximately 55 percent of the world’s oil and gas, pumping out an estimated 85 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. The World Bank has estimated that they control up to 90 percent of global oil and gas reserves,
Since 1990 the richest 10% of the world’s population were responsible for 52% of the cumulative carbon emissions, while The poorest 50% (3.1 billion people) were responsible for just 7% of cumulative emissions (OXFAM)
There is another bank related road block. The IMF reports (2021) that total world debt levels, which include government, household and corporate borrowings, rose to a record $226 trillion or 256 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020. Public debt (of governments) now accounts for almost 40 per cent of total global debt, another record high amounting to about a $90 trillion. This also needs correcting for governments to invest in renewable energy infrastructure and not relay on fossil fuel royalties to service their public debt.
Such rational economic corrections could allow the suicidal economics of constant indiscriminate irresponsible economic growth, to change to economic growth limited to climate change mitigation growth only. Rebuilding the world for zero carbon combustion energy as fast as possible would provide a great boost the world economy and employment. Other production has to be zero growth-developing a world industry of refurbish, reuse and recycle.
Investment and financing in more fossil fuels should of course be prohibited.
Achieving a rapid large reduction in emissions is easier than realized because the vast majority of emissions is from a few countries and a few corporations.
The UN finds the country contribution of global emissions contribution of the 100 least-emitting countries is only 3%, while it is 68% from 10 largest greenhouse gas emitters. The top 3 greenhouse gas emitters contribute 16 times the emissions of the lowest emitting 100 countries. 2007 research showed emissions traced to 90 corporate carbon producers contribute ∼57% of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2, and 42–50% of the rise in global mean surface temperature. Furthermore the 2019 National Oil Company Database found national oil companies (NOCs) produce approximately 55 percent of the world’s oil and gas, pumping out an estimated 85 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. The World Bank has estimated that they control up to 90 percent of global oil and gas reserves,
Since 1990 the richest 10% of the world’s population were responsible for 52% of the cumulative carbon emissions, while The poorest 50% (3.1 billion people) were responsible for just 7% of cumulative emissions (OXFAM)
This requires a large wealth GHG pollution tax
The natural gas industry is not a bridge to zero carbon because gas emits CO2 when burnt and the industry is a big methane emitter
Fossil fuels subsidies ($5.9 Trillion a year by IMF) are an unprecedented evil which for the survival of Humanity have to be terminated right away and shifted to non combustion energy development
Tax credits to GHG polluting fossil fuel industries (including carbon capture storage) cannot be permitted.
CO2 and long-lived, constantly emitted GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere, so have to (can) be totally replaced by conversions to non polluting sources-"less" or "lower" is not good enough for climate and ocean stabilization
Conversions include energy production, transport, food production/diet, construction (steel/concrete to wood)
Air transport should revert to water, and ships powered by compact fission reactors like the US Navy (for decades). Only essential air flights.
To stabilize climate and oceans GHG emissions drop to near zero (IPCC 2014).
Surface Ozone (O3) A largely ignored but dangerous GHG is tropospheric (surface) ozone formed by a chemical reaction of fossil fuel air pollutants (incl. methane) catalyzed by lower atmosphere warmth, and so its concentration increases with global warming- which increases warming. It is toxic to human and plant health, including food crops, so will increase damage to crops as surface temperature increases. Its concentration is increasing in the northern hemisphere. Reduction of ozone precursor methane emissions will be beneficial for human and plant health.
Net zero has now taken over emissions policy replacing actual emissions reduction. As is well known The 2018 IPCC 1.5°C report showed global emissions have to reduced by 45% by 2030 (compared to 2010). This still stands as mitigation for 1.5°C- 2°C. The best case mitigation scenario of the 2018 IPCC 1.5C Report (P1) has fossil fuel emissions near zero as does the 2021 Internationals Energy Agency's 2050 net zero report. However, planned fossil fuel production by 2030 is more than double the 1.5°C limit 45% more than for 2°C (Production Gap report).
Only ZERO CARBON COMBUSTION can stabilize atmospheric CO2 (and ocean acidification), so fossil fuel extraction has to stop right away and be phased out fast (fossilfueltreaty)
Stop fossil fuel (and biomass) combustion in 10 yrs
A full-cost carbon pollution fee is required fast increasing to $200/tonne), at central source, and invested in non-combustion energy
Zero future discounting has to apply In matters of GHG pollution impacts
Make investment in zero carbon combustion energy tax deductible
The only non GHG polluting energy dense power source alternative to coal (for heavy industry) at present is nuclear fission, so fission plants cannot be closed (can be refurbished) and safe molten salt compact reactors produced in large numbers to replace industrial coal and natural gas.
Limiting to 2°C requires very large, very long term removal of CO2 from the air. The only safe certain CO2 known is removal by direct air extraction (DAC) that requires energy. This requites a massive Manhattan Project type R&D venture. Even then models project a lag of 30 years from CO2 removal to stabilization of atmospheric CO2 (IPCC AR6 WG1)
So there is no allowable carbon budget left to burn more fossil fuels
Net zero emissions and carbon neutral have to include zero fossil fuels and zero carbon combustion. The undefined net zero by 2050 today is being used as reason to not reduce emissions rapidly, nor to near zero (even oil corporations say they will be net zero by 2050)
Net zero means no biomass burning, even assuming carbon capture and storage (CCS). CCS after decades of attempts and government financing remains unproven, so CCS (or promise of CCS) cannot possibly be an assumed mitigation
Carbon neutral, net zero, carbon offsetting and carbon trading are ways of delaying and avoiding emergency immediate slashing of emissions
Clearing forests is not net zero or carbon neutral, as clearing and burning emit forest floor and slash carbon, and it takes 25 years for a new forest to pull out carbon. Today when global emissions had to be declining, clear cutting forests is a carbon emitter.
Zero deforestation is required for de-carbonization (no clear cutting)
De-militarization with international peaceful co-operation is a pre-requisite for de-carbonization. World military expenditures are increasing, now almost 2 trillion USD a year.
Budgets and expertise would be transferred for large mitigation and adaptation projects.
The livestock/meat and dairy industry have to end for near zero methane and CO2 emissions (IPCC AR5) because cattle exhale methane and forests are cleared for pasture and cattle feed (CO2)
The world has to go vegan, the least GHG polluting, healthiest diet after all.
Highly potent long lasting F-gases (halocarbons) have to be eliminated.
Geo-engineering
Some CO2 has to be removed safely by direct air capture, but the feasible amount at best would be limited.
As catastrophe looms larger due to inaction, more attention from the science is being given to geo engineering planetary cooling. This is extremely dangerous to our future survival because it provides a false excuse for inaction on emissions. Obviously it cannot be resorted to in the absence of aggressive mitigation, but it is looking like it will be.
It cannot mitigate catastrophic climate change, at best provide a short delay. There are two main major reasons. Ocean acidification would continue, which alone can be catastrophic to life on land as well as in the oceans. The other major reason is that atmospheric GHGs would continue to accumulate in the atmosphere increasing the radiative heat forcing. Whenever the cooling stops an abrupt massive global heating is the result, which would be the end for almost all life.
Problems with climate change science that tend to minimize the emergency
IPCC deficiencies arise because the Panel is compromised by government policy makers.
IPCC global warming model projections do not include these large source amplifying feedbacks are not , which has to be corrected.
Only ZERO CARBON COMBUSTION can stabilize atmospheric CO2 (and ocean acidification), so fossil fuel extraction has to stop right away and be phased out fast (fossilfueltreaty)
Stop fossil fuel (and biomass) combustion in 10 yrs
A full-cost carbon pollution fee is required fast increasing to $200/tonne), at central source, and invested in non-combustion energy
Zero future discounting has to apply In matters of GHG pollution impacts
Make investment in zero carbon combustion energy tax deductible
The only non GHG polluting energy dense power source alternative to coal (for heavy industry) at present is nuclear fission, so fission plants cannot be closed (can be refurbished) and safe molten salt compact reactors produced in large numbers to replace industrial coal and natural gas.
Limiting to 2°C requires very large, very long term removal of CO2 from the air. The only safe certain CO2 known is removal by direct air extraction (DAC) that requires energy. This requites a massive Manhattan Project type R&D venture. Even then models project a lag of 30 years from CO2 removal to stabilization of atmospheric CO2 (IPCC AR6 WG1)
So there is no allowable carbon budget left to burn more fossil fuels
Net zero emissions and carbon neutral have to include zero fossil fuels and zero carbon combustion. The undefined net zero by 2050 today is being used as reason to not reduce emissions rapidly, nor to near zero (even oil corporations say they will be net zero by 2050)
Net zero means no biomass burning, even assuming carbon capture and storage (CCS). CCS after decades of attempts and government financing remains unproven, so CCS (or promise of CCS) cannot possibly be an assumed mitigation
Carbon neutral, net zero, carbon offsetting and carbon trading are ways of delaying and avoiding emergency immediate slashing of emissions
Clearing forests is not net zero or carbon neutral, as clearing and burning emit forest floor and slash carbon, and it takes 25 years for a new forest to pull out carbon. Today when global emissions had to be declining, clear cutting forests is a carbon emitter.
Zero deforestation is required for de-carbonization (no clear cutting)
De-militarization with international peaceful co-operation is a pre-requisite for de-carbonization. World military expenditures are increasing, now almost 2 trillion USD a year.
Budgets and expertise would be transferred for large mitigation and adaptation projects.
The livestock/meat and dairy industry have to end for near zero methane and CO2 emissions (IPCC AR5) because cattle exhale methane and forests are cleared for pasture and cattle feed (CO2)
The world has to go vegan, the least GHG polluting, healthiest diet after all.
Highly potent long lasting F-gases (halocarbons) have to be eliminated.
Geo-engineering
Some CO2 has to be removed safely by direct air capture, but the feasible amount at best would be limited.
As catastrophe looms larger due to inaction, more attention from the science is being given to geo engineering planetary cooling. This is extremely dangerous to our future survival because it provides a false excuse for inaction on emissions. Obviously it cannot be resorted to in the absence of aggressive mitigation, but it is looking like it will be.
It cannot mitigate catastrophic climate change, at best provide a short delay. There are two main major reasons. Ocean acidification would continue, which alone can be catastrophic to life on land as well as in the oceans. The other major reason is that atmospheric GHGs would continue to accumulate in the atmosphere increasing the radiative heat forcing. Whenever the cooling stops an abrupt massive global heating is the result, which would be the end for almost all life.
Problems with climate change science that tend to minimize the emergency
IPCC deficiencies arise because the Panel is compromised by government policy makers.
IPCC global warming model projections do not include these large source amplifying feedbacks are not , which has to be corrected.
The IPCC procedures are in effect is fossil fuels biased. The IPCC assesses for probability but does not assess risk. Its single metric climate sensitivity of 3C is fatally flawed for the future. The consensus by unanimity of all scientists and polity makers results in under-estimates of harm. The IPCC makes no conclusions on dangers (claiming it can't make such "value judgments" and does not make recommendations (claiming it cannot be prescriptive"). The IPCC avoids the runaway scenario, the world now faces. The IPCC applies fossil fuels biased economics in its cost benefit calculations, still claiming mitigation is an economic cost.
The National Academies and Royal Societies emulate the IPCC, but are mandated to advise their governments of the full extent of the existential emergency and the imperative of immediate rapid global emissions decline requiring immediate termination of fossil fuel subsidies and a global escalating price on carbon.
The National Academies and Royal Societies emulate the IPCC, but are mandated to advise their governments of the full extent of the existential emergency and the imperative of immediate rapid global emissions decline requiring immediate termination of fossil fuel subsidies and a global escalating price on carbon.
Misleading minimizing aspects of climate science
The scientists statement that stopping all GHG emissions does not result in a further temperature increase is policy misleading. From the time the world decides to reverse today's increasing global emissions, it takes a long time for stabilization. Global temperature and impacts continues to increase at a slowly reducing rate, due to socio-economic- technological lags and climate system lags. James Hansen has put both of these roughly at another 0.6°C. Another 1.2C is unavoidable and the emergency is far worse than assumed. The IPCC further minimizes the situation by only taking model projections to 2100, while global warming lasts many hundreds of years. The unmasking of hidden extra heat from fossil fuel air pollution cooling aerosols, adds more temperature increase because fossil fuel energy has to end.
Failure to recommend emissions mitigation
Climate change research papers often report on processes that increase climate or ocean change. While at the end of the papers they recommend more research into the issue they hardly ever recommend reversing global emissions.
Failure to recommend emissions mitigation
Climate change research papers often report on processes that increase climate or ocean change. While at the end of the papers they recommend more research into the issue they hardly ever recommend reversing global emissions.
CLIMATE EMERGENCY INSTITUTE
The Health And Human Rights Approach to Greenhouse Gas pollution
The Home page has been changed as a one stop resource for activists (Jan 2022) It presents the case that the still ignored dire global climate change emergency is an unprecedented crime against Humanity and Nature, a huge growing threat to the survival of the human race and most life on Earth
Climate Emergency Institute
Feb 2022, IPCC 6th assessment Working Group 2 Impacts
IPCC AR6 WG2 Press conference slides
IPCC AR6 WG2 Headline Statements
SPM.B.1 Human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people The rise in weather and climate extremes has led to irreversible impacts as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt.
SPM B2.Approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change. A high proportion of species is vulnerable to climate change. Human and ecosystem vulnerability are interdependent. Current unsustainable development patterns are increasing ecosystems and people to climate hazards
April 2022, IPCC WG3 Mitigation
USD100 tCO2-eq-1 reduces global GHG emissions by at least half
2019 level by 2030- Carbon price charge to fossil fuel industry
(Head line statement C2)
2019 level by 2030- Carbon price charge to fossil fuel industry
(Head line statement C2)
Emissions must decline
immediately
(AR6 WG3)
immediately
(AR6 WG3)
20222 NOAA AGGI CO2eq.=2.6C equilibrium & atmospheric GHGs increasing faster than ever
“In all scenarios except SSP5-8.5, the estimate of crossing the 1.5°C threshold lies in the early 2030s” (IPCC AR6 WG1 Ch.4 555.