It is simple from the 'need to do aspect'. They need to agree drastic reductions. It is estimated (from current Science*) that we can emit 1000GT of CO2 between 2000-2050 globally for a less tan 75% (8-37%) chance of exceeding 2 Degrees, between 2000-2009 we emited 363GT approx, 2 Degrees is not safe since it affects many things and we need to agree to less than 1 Degree and 2 Degrees takes us into the spiral out of control scenario.
The maths is quite simple, 2 x 363GT = past the safe by a long way. That means we can emit less than x2 what was emitted between 2000-2009 forever if we are to respect the current science, which is the best we have to work with. 40% for developed countries will not get near to this.
Therefore we can emit anothe 300-400 GT, which is nothing, and the targets being discussed even at the very high levels of agreement dont do it. So the whole thing from what I can see is on the wrong track. The UN needs to state what is required and require states to abide by the UNFCCC that requires emissions to be limited to safe levels. That requires 50% globally by 2020 and an end to deforestation now, and after that 75% by 2030, 85% by 2040 and 100% below by 2050. At the same time we need to take out CO2 from the atmosphere.
From what I can see they are not even close to the ballpark. They have delayed it for so long that now the reductions needed are trully dramatic and no-one is even really stating that from what I can see. Just look at news today in whatever country, seeing as this is a possible global catastrophy on a scale not yet seen, do you think they are giving it full attention?? Its a simple message if they want to give it. Demand the agreement now.
Yours
Richard Levicki
*Meinshausen et all April 2009, Nature, Vol 458/30 pp.1158-1162
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.