Whenever I think about climate change, my understanding is more ideological and economic. In the New York Times Article by Justin Gills, “U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions”. The U.N climate panel recently endorsed an upper limit on greenhouse gases, which establishes a target level which people must stop these emissions or face dire climatic changes. The target level established was predicted to be exceeded in relatively short time if measures were not taken to curb emissions. Human related activity was cited as the leading cause of Global warming. The climate panel endorsed a “carbon budget” for humanity. This is a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by industrial activities and clearing of forests. It was observed the no more than 1 trillion metric tons of carbon could be burned in order for global warming to remain below 2 degrees Celsius (Gillis, 2013).
It is estimated that just over a half trillion tons have been burned since the industrial revolution and the remaining will be burned by around the year 2040. This is a problem that oil companies have to solve since there are over 3 trillion tons of carbons as reserves. When the trillion budget is exhausted, companies have to come up with methods, to trap carbon dioxide, and place it underneath the surface. This will prove very costly for these companies, but the U.S has already started on rules that require this technology. This report also contains uncertainties like the magnitude of warming for a given level of emissions, rate which oceans will increase in volume and the probability that plants and animals will cease to exist. The only way to limit the risk of such uncertainties is to limit emissions. This article in some aspects resembles the article by Bill Mckibben on “Global warming’s terrifying New Math.” Let us look at this article by Bill Mckibben, which gives scary, numbers on Global warming and why despite its chilling nature why it does not stir emotions in people. The article by Bill Mckibben on Global warming’s terrifying New Math gives three simple numbers that add up to a global catastrophe. They include two degrees Celsius, 565 gigatons and 2765 gigatons.
The fight against global warming is one which we are very quickly losing and badly. The main reason for this could be the fact that we remain in denial about the danger we face. Our leaders don’t seem to notice too. The world Nations meeting in Rio, in the month of June last year accomplished nothing as it was largely unattended. George Monbiot, a British journalist wrote; no one paid much attention, footsteps echoing through the halls once thronged by multitudes (Mckibben, 2012). In order for one to comprehend the gravity of the predicament we face one only needs to do a little math. Arithmetical analysis published by financial analysts in the U.K allows us to understand global warming with the above three simple numbers.
The First Number: Two degrees Celsius
The Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 recognized in its accord that the addition in planetary temperature should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius. Currently the average planetary temperature is just under 0.8 degrees Celsius. This has caused major damage significant of which was unexpected by scientists. A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone; oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and atmosphere over the oceans is five percent wetter loading the dice for devastating floods (Mckibben, 2012). Due to those effects at 0.8 degrees Celsius two degrees is viewed as too much. However political realism upended scientific data and the two degree target was settled on which is obviously detrimental.
The second Number: 565 Gigatons
Estimates put forward by scientists state that humans can release 565 more gigatons of greenhouse gases into the air and still remain below the two degrees target level. This is a global “carbon budget” formulated while trying to figure out how much oil, coal and gas can be safely burned. Looking at the current global temperature, 0.8 degrees Celsius you would think we are less than halfway to the target. However computer models calculate a further 0.8 degrees Celsius increase even if we stopped increasing carbon dioxide levels. This translates to 1.6 degrees Celsius, 0.4 degrees shy of the two degrees target.
The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons
This number, the most terrifying, represents the fossil fuel we are planning to burn. What is terrifying about it is that it is higher than 565, far much higher. It was highlighted by a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists. This number means that we have five times as much oil; coal and gas in reserves as climate scientists think is safe to burn. Before this number came up our fate on the hands of global warming had been likely, but now it seems certain. These reserves are technically underground, but they are already being used up economically. Companies are borrowing against it; share prices figure it in and budgets based on the presumed returns. The New York Times article is similar to the Mckibben one in terms of the policies set to curb emissions. The world settled on two degrees Celsius as the global temperature that should not be exceeded. Climate-skeptic organizations view the information brought to light by these articles as alarmist. They cite the issue that planetary warming had decreased in the past fifteen years. This is explained as natural variability of climate in the U.N. report. However it is obvious that we have a very dim future if we continue ignoring what is right in front of us. Mckibben’s article somewhat wanted to stir up people and wake them from their “deep slumber”.
The article by Bill Mckibben, “Global warming’s Terrifying New Math” summarizes the theoretical numbers that warn us of detrimental impacts of continued burning of earth’s fossil fuels (Bateman, 2012). However it falls short on its goal to aid in mobilizing a new movement for climate action. The use of math to mobilize a movement is commonly used by environmentalists who are worried about their credibility (Petermann, 2012). This is unfortunate because the use of statistics does not inspire passion required when mobilizing people. The article disempowers his audience by saying there is nothing to be done due to the Supreme Court decision in 2010 (Mckibben, 2012). The decision allowed corporations to spend unrestricted amounts of money on elections which mean they can buy the politicians they desire. In the intergovernmental report, they gave their first firm estimates on scientific evidence. It states if emissions continue at a rapid pace the rise will be by 3 feet at the end of the 21st century (Miller, 2006). Serious questions are coming up from authors about the validity of these estimates. They cite reasons like the earth is becoming less responsive to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases emitted. What remains agreeable is that the harms that are being experienced from climate will worsen until emissions are reduced.
References
Bateman, D. (2012, december 13). WAG - Wind Action Group Engineering: Thoughts on Bill McKibben’s Article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”:. Retrieved from wagengineering.blogspot.com: http://wagengineering.blogspot.com/2012/12/thoughts-on-bill-mckibbens-article.html
Gillis, J. (2013, September 27). U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions - NYTimes.com:. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html
Mckibben, B. (2012, July 19). Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone:. Retrieved from www.rollingstone.com: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math
Miller, R. S. (2006). Forced annular variations in the 20th century intergovernmental panel on climate change fourth assessment report models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111(D18).
Petermann, A. (2012, July 24). Three responses to Bill McKibben’s new article, “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math” | Climate Connections:. Retrieved from climate-connections.org: http://climate-connections.org/2012/07/24/three-responses-to-bill-mckibbens-new-article-global-warmings-terrifying-new-math/
References
Bateman, D. (2012, december 13). WAG - Wind Action Group Engineering: Thoughts on Bill McKibben’s Article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”:. Retrieved from wagengineering.blogspot.com: http://wagengineering.blogspot.com/2012/12/thoughts-on-bill-mckibbens-article.html
Gillis, J. (2013, September 27). U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions - NYTimes.com:. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html
Mckibben, B. (2012, July 19). Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone:. Retrieved from www.rollingstone.com: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math
Miller, R. S. (2006). Forced annular variations in the 20th century intergovernmental panel on climate change fourth assessment report models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111(D18).
Petermann, A. (2012, July 24). Three responses to Bill McKibben’s new article, “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math” | Climate Connections:. Retrieved from climate-connections.org: http://climate-connections.org/2012/07/24/three-responses-to-bill-mckibbens-new-article-global-warmings-terrifying-new-math/
