Governments weigh options to brake climate peril (Update)

Apr 07, 2014
A Network Rail picture shows waves whipped up by stormy weather crashing over train lines in Dawlish in south Devon, southern England, on February 5, 2014. The UN has said extreme weather events are 'consistent' with man made climate change

Government envoys and scientists gathered under the UN banner in Berlin Monday to hammer out a list of options for curbing carbon emissions driving dangerous climate change.

Fresh from issuing its starkest-ever warning about the impacts of global warming on Earth's weather system, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will meet until Friday to vet the choices meant to inform policymakers.

A draft of the document, seen by AFP, suggests there is a 15-year window for affordable action to safely reach the UN's warming limit of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial times.

The report, the product of four years' work by hundreds of experts, aims to provide governments with the latest science on climate change.

It is also designed to inform the struggling effort to forge a worldwide pact by next year to curb greenhouse gases and help poor countries cope with climate impacts.

"Preventing dangerous interference with the climate system entails mitigating climate change," said Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chairman of the panel's Working Group III, which compiled the report.

"On a transparent, scientific basis, our report provides an understanding of the available options to meet this challenge."

A Summary for Policymakers will be publicly released in the German capital on Sunday, and the full report—authored by scientists but not submitted to the IPCC plenary for scrutiny—will be released shortly afterwards.

Cooling towers of the coal-fired power plant of Scholven in Gelsenkirchen, western Germany, are pictured on January 16, 2012

A draft of the summary expresses no preferences for how to tame the problem, nor what a safe level of warming should be.

But it says the UN's 2 C target remains feasible if "all countries" act quickly to mitigate, or ease, carbon emissions.

"Delaying mitigation through 2030 will increase the challenges," cautions the document.

In raw terms, global carbon emissions of 49 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2010 will have to be pegged to 30-50 billion tonnes in 2030.

"To keep within 2 C, greenhouse-gas emissions would have to fall very quickly," French climatologist Herve Le Treut told AFP in the runup to the meeting.

"They would have to fall roughly by a third by 2050."

Most scenarios that meet the 2 C target entail a "tripling to nearly a quadrupling" in the share of energy from renewable and nuclear sources and fossil-fuel plants whose carbon gas emissions are captured and stored, according to the draft.

Other mitigation options include halting the thinning of carbon-capturing forests, and boosting low-emission public transport schemes.

Government representatives and scientists will go through the summary line by line over the next few days.

"In the plenary, all countries can voice their concerns and all of them are heard," said co-chairman Youba Sokona.

"In the end, it is scientific accuracy that decides."

The meeting comes eight days after the second volume of the report, on the likely impacts of climate change, was unveiled in Yokohama, Japan.

It warned that the risk of conflict, hunger, floods and mass displacement increased with every upward creep of the mercury.

Explore further: Next 15 years vital for taming warming: UN panel

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Next 15 years vital for taming warming: UN panel

Jan 17, 2014

The next 15 years will be vital in determining whether global warming can be limited to 2C (3.6F) by 2100, with energy and transport presenting the heftiest challenges, according to a draft UN report.

UN scientists see grim future if no climate action

Mar 23, 2014

UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed.

Climate meeting to discuss future of fossil fuels

Apr 05, 2014

After concluding that global warming almost certainly is man-made and poses a grave threat to humanity, the U.N.-sponsored expert panel on climate change is moving on to the next phase: what to do about it.

UN document warning of grave climate future completed

Mar 30, 2014

Leading scientists and officials completed a fresh climate report Sunday expected to lay bare the grim impact of climate change, with warnings that global food shortages could spark violence in vulnerable ...

Recommended for you

New solutions needed to recycle fracking water

11 hours ago

Rice University scientists have produced a detailed analysis of water produced by hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking) of three gas reservoirs and suggested environmentally friendly remedies are needed to ...

Feds allows logging after huge California wildfire

22 hours ago

The U.S. Forest Service has decided to allow logging on nearly 52 square miles of the Sierra Nevada burned last year in a massive California wildfire, a move contested by environmentalists.

User comments : 35

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

orti
2 / 5 (12) Apr 07, 2014
"Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change, removed his name from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. While he considers much of the science sound and supports the underlying purpose of the IPCC, Tol says the United Nations agency's inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution."
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2014
"The warmists' idea was that the global fight against carbon emissions would work only if the whole world signed up to it. Despite being ordered to by President Obama, who had just collected his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the developing countries refused. The Left-wing dream that what used to be called the Third World would finally be emancipated from Western power had come true. The developing countries were perfectly happy for the West to have "the green crap", but not to have it themselves. The Western goody-goodies were hoist by their own petard. "
"The EU, including Britain, continues to inflict expensive pain upon itself. Last week, the latest IPCC report made the usual warnings about climate change, but behind its rhetoric was a huge concession. The answer to the problems of climate change lay in adaptation, not in mitigation, it admitted. So the game is up. "
http://www.telegr...ers.html
The Alchemist
4.3 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2014
Well shucks, all the expensive properties are on the cost, with the sea rising, suddenly it's the rich man's burden.
Mimath224
4.4 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2014
Debate is a good thing but from what I read the scientists are divided.
Let's assume that the present climate change is part of periodical event with humanity adding but to a lesser degree. Perhaps it would still be a good idea to curb or control 'this & that' as part of an exercise that we can actually do it.
If we are responsible for climate change to a higher degree then controls are necessary.That's all very well but what do we do? Bring back the 'ration books' so that everyone is only allowed so much of gas/petrol, electricity etc.? After all it's the populace that buys and industry provides. I'm sure scientists are working hard to find 'greener' alternatives but even these could not be implemented overnight. If the public suddenly decided to abandon their homes, cars etc. to go back to living more simply (LOL) what would happen?
We got ourselves into this twisted mess (assuming we are responsible) and there 'ain't no easy way out'.
The Alchemist
4.8 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2014
@Mimath224: You're breaking my heart.
Forget the division of scientists, any credible scientist k-n-o-w-s.
Think about this fact, just one of many:
The Earths oceans have risen 6cm.
6cm x the area of the Earth's Oceans x the heat needed to melt the ice, the ice that formed the water to cause the rise =
an definitive change in the state of the Earth from absorbed heat.
That heat (NOT temperature rise) is now measured, at minimum. The melt from ice in contact with the oceans is not accounted for, and we will probably never be able to call it.
It is in very close agreement to the amount of heat released by fossil fuels...
Mimath224
5 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2014
@The Alchemist, yes I understand but wasn't arguing for one side or the other. All I am saying is what do these 'top level' conferences suggest is going to work. Believe me, where I live in SE Asia there is very little hope of control in this century. No doubt other countries have problems too. I've seen various statistics for this & that but in the end stats won't solve the problem and only a great deal effort will suffice. Do you see that effort emerging?
The Alchemist
2.2 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2014
@Mimath- Perhaps, but you'd label me a complete nut if I told you what I see.
I can say something and let you do the math...
You may know Sunspot activity is reaching a local maximum, yet this year has been cold. Something doesn't add up, as the Sun overwhelmingly dominated the picture.
The only non-crack-pot observation I can see is Arctic melt waters have cooled the surrounding ocean enough that cold weather is able to travel farther into the N hemisphere, creating cold and snow, which will in turn, hopefully increase albedo significantly.
TegiriNenashi
1.3 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2014
"A draft of the document, seen by AFP, suggests there is a 15-year window for affordable action to safely reach the UN's warming limit of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial times."

Yeah, right. Now we have all the technology, which would evaporate in the future (exactly 15 years). "Buy that used car -- today special promotion only!"
Mimath224
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2014
@The Alchemist, as a layman I don't have expertise to form an opinion and rely on those who have. I do note the changes that are taking place though; yes I'm aware of the Sun's importance and agree with your 'Something doesn't add up...' So what wiould be your idea for step in the right direction?
The Alchemist
5 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2014
@Mimath-Thank you for asking. Even though its is only my opinion, the facts back it up pretty well.
Reduce consumption, or at least balance consumption of fossil fuels. Burning these releases energy from the Sun thousands of years ago, they are worse than "turning up the Sun" as all the heat generated is waste heat.
You can convert current yard waste, wood by-products, etc to fuels without hurting the environs, they are only Sunshine from last season.
Wind is always blowing above 40 feet. Big windmills are a joke that allow entities with large capital to continue to charge for energy, personal omni directional (circular veins not blades) wind generators are cheap an easy-or should be.
I am not a fan of solar in its current state-but that is where the world is focused.

I am working on a home wind generator. Despite it being technology from the 1930's, it is not made easy.

We don't need so much energy-from the day powers night-light, heat and insulation, what more do you want?
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2014
We got ourselves into this twisted mess (assuming we are responsible) and there 'ain't no easy way out'.


I'd recommend seeing a film called "Pandora's Promise", and seeing how easily the French turned virtually their entire electrical production to nuclear in a couple of decades. It's not easy anymore because of all the hysteria surrounding nuclear (and the movie addresses that as well), but it's far from impossible. It's also more helpful than policy after policy that won't be implemented and wouldn't work even if they were.
Mimath224
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2014
@The Alchemist your home generator interested me because way back I had a engineer friend who virtually built his house from scratch. He had something to prove and was convinced that if we didn't curb our consumption it would eventually cause a problem. He wasn't wrong. He didn't do all by himself and various parts were imported ideas. From Scotland he found wind turbine but when explained it to me I thought it was a 'nightmare' of a thing but he assured it worked. Another imported (Midlands, England) idea was the central heating having a single pump and no heat source (gas or electric) The pipes were lined with 'something' and basically circulated water was heated by friction. As I understood it the drawback was that the pipes were on the 'heavy side'. He died before the house was finished and many of the ideas were later patented, bought by 'someone' and 'shelved'. I often wonder just how much there might on these 'shelves' that could be of some use now...but I guess I'll never know
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2014
Home generation is a nice idea, if you don't plan to move, ever, and you can afford the maintenance and repairs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2014
We got ourselves into this twisted mess (assuming we are responsible) and there 'ain't no easy way out'.


I'd recommend seeing a film called "Pandora's Promise", and seeing how easily the French turned virtually their entire electrical production to nuclear in a couple of decades. It's not easy anymore because of all the hysteria surrounding nuclear (and the movie addresses that as well), but it's far from impossible. It's also more helpful than policy after policy that won't be implemented and wouldn't work even if they were.

Where are the scientists and technologists promoting safe nuclear power such as Th reactors or the sealed reactors from Toshiba and Gen4?
The real challenge for a truly apolitical scientific community is to fully explain and discuss the real vs perceived and/ or politically motivated risks.
After DDT, ALAR, AGW, vaccines, fat-free diets, what scientist can be trusted?
The first book for PhD scientists should be The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2014
Where are the scientists and technologists promoting safe nuclear power such as Th reactors or the sealed reactors from Toshiba and Gen4?


Hiding for their professional lives. The people who made the movie I mentioned are all environmental activists who understand that nuclear power is safe, cheap, and the ONLY thing that's going to make a dent in CO2 emissions realistically. There are some nuclear engineers and some physicists who appear in the movie but they're all retired and "professionally safe".

They go into great detail about the IFR, and Gen 4 plants. They even go up to the Fukishima and Chernobyl plants and show radiation readings lower than you get on the street in NYC. Interesting stuff...
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2014
Debate is a good thing but from what I read the scientists are divided.


Eh??
Not unless you call 97v3 divided.

Try to read in the right places my friend.
Denialist blogs don't count - at least in a sane world... then of course a certain ideologically motivated minority do indeed live in an insane world.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2014
Not unless you call 97v3 divided.

Really?
Is that why the American Physical Society has asked Christy, Lindzen and Curry to advise APS on their next climate statement?
In the life sciences, fraud abounds but 'peers' are afraid to identify themselves as the fraudster controls their funding.
Is this why Mann has his own research group?
eric_in_chicago
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2014
thorium is safe from accidents but certainly not safe from PROLIFERATION...that bit is not true.
eric_in_chicago
5 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2014
conservation is the first step. we waste!
The Alchemist
4.6 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2014
I had occasion to ask a young'un in the Nuclear Safety business about all these fast, Thorium, etc., reactors.
He didn't know a thing about them... he couldn't have been out of school more than a few years...
?
!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2014
thorium is safe from accidents but certainly not safe from PROLIFERATION...that bit is not true.

What's to proliferate?

But then no one really cares too much about proliferation as nothing has been done to stop Iran from enriching U for a bomb.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2014
" Shutting some of the 100 reactors that provide about 20 percent of America's electricity would cause a crisis on electrical grids strained by a cold winter and the continuing loss of coal-fired plants, said Peter Sena III, chief nuclear officer for FirstEnergy.

"Without a reserve margin, you'll have rolling blackouts," Sena said after talking to about 40 industry members in Cranberry during an event that the Energy Alliance of Greater Pittsburgh sponsored. "It's going to take a significant emotional event to institute change."

Read more: http://triblive.c...yQiTuEmz
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook
Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2014
conservation is the first step. we waste!


First of all there is no "we". Secondly I agree that most Americans don't conserve....so what does that tell you about how effective a strategy that is?

It's not that I disagree with the principle...I disagree how realistic the principle is applied to pesky human beings with free will.
The Alchemist
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2014
thorium is safe from accidents but certainly not safe from PROLIFERATION...that bit is not true.

What's to proliferate?

But then no one really cares too much about proliferation as nothing has been done to stop Iran from enriching U for a bomb.

This always strikes me as funny, especially since it is proliferated all over the news. If Iran were aggressive, they could always use a primitive WWII-style bomb, it would work just fine.
You want the enriched U as a stable deterrent.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
Home generation is a nice idea, if you don't plan to move, ever, and you can afford the maintenance and repairs.
I am not sure I understand this Rygg... are you saying that the only way you can generate your own power is to have stationary infrastructure?

this is absolutely not true. talk to any person who does blue-water sailing... or certain types of campers/mobile homesteads

maintenance is cheap and easy if done correctly, and there are plenty of places that teach/show how to build stuff yourself with scrap/parts/etc

the only grid tie-in that I have is the cabin next to my grandkids. and even that is only to run the fridge and SW/CB transmitters
The Alchemist
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
I've been challenged by "going off the grid," can you help a brother out?
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2014
This always strikes me as funny, especially since it is proliferated all over the news. If Iran were aggressive, they could always use a primitive WWII-style bomb, it would work just fine.
You want the enriched U as a stable deterrent.


I guess we'd see how funny it is when if they manage to sneak a couple of nuclear tipped missiles on some cargo ships in the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Mexico, detonate them high in the atmosphere and fry every transistor in Europe and the US.

That would be a knee slapper...

What strikes ME as funny is when people are faced with such obvious threats and chose to ignore them despite the fact that history is replete with examples...especially in Europe.
The Alchemist
4 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2014
@Modernmystic- Funny-peculiar, not funny ha-ha.
But here's the thing to remember about those terrible Arabs. People are just folks, nobody goes out of their way to do rotten things without something rotten being done to them.
The US has been playing dominoes with middle-eastern countries since WWII. When Churchill completely ruined their countries with destructive boarders. Beirut was known as the jewel of the middle east before US involvement. I guess this is off topic, but to sum it up: Nobody hates your way of life enough to end it.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2014
nobody goes out of their way to do rotten things without something rotten being done to them.

The Arabs have had centuries to mess themselves up long before the Brits got involved. It's a tribal thing.
even that is only to run the fridge and SW/CB transmitters

How about a 10KW system? How portable is that?
The Alchemist
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
An Arab history lesson is in order. You will be surprised even if you only take the survey...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
If Iran were aggressive, they could always use a primitive WWII-style bomb, it would work just fine.


High explosives or nuclear?
If nuclear, that is what they are building, the atomic fission bomb.
The real nature of such a threat is knowing they have one and can detonate one anywhere, IF you don't do what they want you to do.
And, there is a real EMP threat with any nuclear device and there are non-nuclear EMPs.
The Alchemist
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
We now return you to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress... with my apologies...
Governments weigh options to brake climate peril (Update)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2014
I've been challenged by "going off the grid," can you help a brother out?

what are you looking to find out?
IF you are looking for methodology, you can start by querying blue-water boaters (like sailboats etc) and marine stores which cater to them, but I would aso recommend looking thru the back of magazines like Mother Earth news first, getting info from them, an researching everything.
there are articles on-line telling you how to build the systems, and you need to know what is best for you area. such as: in certain states with high humidity, composting toilets do NOT do well
You can also salvage parts from marina's and truckers (solar panels and radio's)

I would need some specific data for more info, really. I use a combo wind-solar-water method that is also augmented by generator (self propelled or motorized, depending)
all salvaged from boats
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2014
How about a 10KW system? How portable is that?

pretty portable. you can truck mount it, trailer mount it.. etc... see

http://www.global...-tqg.htm

they have from 5kW to 60kW all truck mounted for the military, with special requirements like EMP protection, quiet under a certain db, and so on... so portability is not an issue, really, for something small like 5-60kW generators (especially without the MILSPEC req's)...
above that, it probably becomes an issue, though.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2014
And the procurement, maintenance and replacement costs are less than staying on the grid, and they are not solar powered.
BTW, if you don't have a parking space, where do you put it?