ONE TOWN SQUARE: at the intersection of peak oil, climate change, and land use

There’s an article in the U.K. Guardian – “Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst” – explaining why climate scientists are saying the battle against dangerous climate change had been lost and the world needs to prepare for things to get very, very bad.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently about 387 ppm, up from 280 ppm at the time of the industrial revolution, and rising by more than 2 ppm each year. The “official” position is that the world should aim to cap this rise at 450 ppm, seeking to limit the average global temperature increase to 2C. We have had a 0.7C of that already, and an estimated extra 0.5C is guaranteed because of emissions to date – without considering feedback effects. Scientists are now warning that hitting 450 ppm isn’t good enough and that reducing CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm is necessary if we are to avoid going beyond “tipping points” which would destabilize Earth’s climate and lead to uncontrollable global warming.

The data is showing we’re at the very top end of the worst case emissions scenario. Things are getting worse, not better, and much faster than expected.

At the Guardian, Jonathan Porritt, chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, says it’s time to press the panic button. The UN negotiations are acting as though the 2007 IPCC report still reflects the latest science, when in fact we’ve had three years of peer-reviewed research since from the frontline of the eco-systems most directly affected by climate change.

[T]he vast majority of those studies tell us incontrovertibly that the impact of climate change is more severe and materialising much more rapidly than anything reflected in the fourth assessment report. It’s much worse out there, and it’s getting even worse even faster.

President-elect Barack Obama, who views global warming as t an economic opportunity as well as a problem, is pledging huge investments in roads as a way to stimulate the economy. In Oregon, Kulongoski is doing the same. Environmentalists are trumpeting the spending plans as a victory because a pittance is being thrown at “alternative modes” of transportation.

In Poznan, negotiations over a new climate treaty are “seriously behind schedule”. While Obama has promised to drastically cut U.S. emissions – currently at nearly 17% above 1990 levels – to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050, the U.S. is not represented by the new administration at the conference. And even if it were, Obama’s proposed target is ridiculously inadequate if we are to seriously address the climate crisis.

We’re fiddling while Earth is burning.

Chattering about cap-and-trade schemes is a waste of time. Same with carbon taxes, unless as part of a much more aggressive and inclusive regulatory approach, an all-out effort to slow and then stop burning fossil fuels. Most crucially, we must phase out coal as quickly as possible and leave unconventional oil in the ground. Anything less is not realistic, irregardless of current political prospects. Note to fellow environmentalists: limiting our aspirations to what at the moment seems politically possible is not an intellectually respectable or morally responsible position.

Trying to reboot a U.S. or world economy predicated on exponential growth – “green” or not – is suicide.

Forget bailing out the economy. We need to save the ecological system within which the economy functions, or we’re all – quite literally – toast.