Revealed: the 'carbon bombs' set to trigger catastrophic climate breakdown

[Celerity]

Exclusive: Oil and gas majors are planning scores of vast projects that threaten to shatter the 1.5C climate goal. If governments do not act, these firms will continue to cash in as the world burns

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2022/may/11/fossil-fuel-carbon-bombs-climate-breakdown-oil-gas



The world’s biggest fossil fuel firms are quietly planning scores of “carbon bomb” oil and gas projects that would drive the climate past internationally agreed temperature limits with catastrophic global impacts, a Guardian investigation shows. The exclusive data shows these firms are in effect placing multibillion-dollar bets against humanity halting global heating. Their huge investments in new fossil fuel production could pay off only if countries fail to rapidly slash carbon emissions, which scientists say is vital.

The oil and gas industry is extremely volatile but extraordinarily profitable, particularly when prices are high, as they are at present. ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron have made almost $2tn in profits in the past three decades, while recent price rises led BP’s boss to describe the company as a “cash machine”.

The lure of colossal payouts in the years to come appears to be irresistible to the oil companies, despite the world’s climate scientists stating in February that further delay in cutting fossil fuel use would mean missing our last chance “to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all”. As the UN secretary general, António Guterres, warned world leaders in April: “Our addiction to fossil fuels is killing us.” Details of the projects being planned are not easily accessible but an investigation published in the Guardian shows:



The fossil fuel industry’s short-term expansion plans involve the start of oil and gas projects that will produce greenhouse gases equivalent to a decade of CO2 emissions from China, the world’s biggest polluter. These plans include 195 carbon bombs, gigantic oil and gas projects that would each result in at least a billion tonnes of CO2 emissions over their lifetimes, in total equivalent to about 18 years of current global CO2 emissions. About 60% of these have already started pumping. The dozen biggest oil companies are on track to spend $103m a day for the rest of the decade exploiting new fields of oil and gas that cannot be burned if global heating is to be limited to well under 2C.

snip

[roamer65]

1. At around 1000ppm, people become 20 pct dumber.

That is the cognitive impairment at that level of CO2.

Try to imagine a human race 20 pct dumber than it is now.

Literally, it will be like the movie Idiocracy.

That should be worrying everyone.

Read “The Uninhabitable Earth”. Good book that will scare the shit outta ya.

[Celerity]

2. Data from Earth's past holds a warning for our future under climate change

Scientists have found that during ancient warm periods, sea levels vastly increased and rainfall events grew extreme.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/06/data-from-earths-past-holds-a-warning-for-our-future-under-climate-change/

Our planet’s climate recently achieved a disturbing milestone in history, with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reaching 415 parts per million (ppm). The last time CO2 levels were so high occurred more than two million years ago during the mid-Pliocene.

Over the years, significant research has been carried out to reconstruct levels of atmospheric CO2 over geologic time. These reconstructions indicate that during the Miocene (5 – 23.5 million years ago), CO2 levels were around 400 to 500 ppm; during the Oligocene (23.5 – 33.5 million years ago), levels ranged from 500 ppm to 1,000 ppm; and during the mid-to-late Eocene (33.5 – 55 million years ago), levels ranged from 1,000 to 1,600 ppm. CO2 levels declined very slowly from the Eocene to the pre-industrial time period. This slow decline in CO2 is best explained as having occurred because geologic uplifted rock was weathered as a result of increased rainfall, the result of warmer, wetter conditions. That falling rain collected CO2 from the atmosphere and deposited it on rock, where chemical reactions led to the eventual transport of the carbon to the oceans.

Projecting Earth’s future by studying its deep past

Thus, over geologic time, Earth has performed long-term climate experiments with varying levels of atmospheric CO2. By combining geologic, geochemical, palynological, and paleobotanical data, scientists have created time slices of Earth’s past warm climates. The synthesis of these data clearly indicates a much warmer Earth for past periods – when CO2 concentrations were greater than they were during pre-industrial time.

These past warm climates are radically different from any the human species has experienced. For example, during the Eocene, crocodiles lived near the Arctic circle and palm trees thrived at high latitudes. The polar regions were much warmer than the mid-latitudes, leading to climate states unable to support large ice sheets. Sea levels were up to 200 feet higher than they are presently, with far fewer large ice sheets. Overall, deep-time geologic research definitively shows that atmospheric CO2 is a major driver of Earth’s climate.

snip

[roamer65]

3. ...

David Wallace-Wells, author of “The Uninhabitable Earth”.

[Javaman]

22. After seeing your post, I borrowed the book for the library

I’m listening to the audio version.

I knew much of what he writes about but this should be required reading by everyone in the world

Its downright terrifying

[roamer65]

23. It is.

Crops aren’t even adjusting. They are making more sugars in response to the CO2 and the nutritional value is getting watered down. I remember that part of the book vividly.

[Javaman]

24. in the very first paragraph...

in the last 30 years the amount of CO2 release is equal to all the CO2 released prior since the start of the industrial era.

we are sooooooooo fucked.

[roamer65]

25. Yes, royally.

Without a doubt.

8 billion is definitely too many.

[hunter]

26. But that's the reality we have to deal with.

If we leave it to "Mother Nature" it won't be pretty.

This planet has seen many innovative species come and go.

[roamer65]

5. One point that often doesn't get mentioned.

The other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, like CFC, HFC, methane, etc.

They equate to about 80ppm CO2 equivalent.

So we are presently at around an equivalency of a bit over 500ppm CO2.

https://www.co2.earth/annual-ghg-index-aggi

[True Dough]

4. At that rate,

the rest of us will be on the brink of becoming MAGA!

[exboyfil]

6. Here is a story

It says outdoor levels of 930 ppm will lead to indoor levels of 1400 ppm. Projected cognitive decline of 25%.


I see CO2 scrubbers in our homes and businesses in the future.


They found that if the outdoor CO2 concentrations do rise to 930 ppm, that would nudge the indoor concentrations to a harmful level of 1400 ppm.

"At this level, some studies have demonstrated compelling evidence for significant cognitive impairment," said Anna Schapiro, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and a coauthor on the study.

"Though the literature contains some conflicting findings and much more research is needed, it appears that high level cognitive domains like decision-making and planning are especially susceptible to increasing CO2 concentrations."

In fact, at 1400 ppm, CO2 concentrations may cut our basic decision-making ability by 25 percent, and complex strategic thinking by around 50 percent, the authors found.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

[roamer65]

9. Idiocracy is coming.

[Delphinus]

13. Cognitive impairment,

mine and others, truly does frighten me.

[hunter]

7. It's damned near impossible for an affluent North American not to be complicit in this.

The average resident of the U.S.A. or Canada has about three times the carbon footprint of any average human.

There are some paths forward, but many are rejected by conventional "Liberals" and "Conservatives" alike.

The most serious problem is that economic "productivity" as we now define it isn't truly any kind of productivity at all. It is, in fact, a direct measure of the damage we are doing to our planet's natural environment and our own human spirit.

There are far too many people selling us false solutions to this fundamental problem.

I'll start with Elon Musk. He's not doing a single fucking thing that will make the world a better place. Musk is just one guy. Fortunately he's beginning to lose his shine.

Unfortunately, too many of us are forced to suffer work that likewise does not make the world a better place. And it's not just the coal miners who are trapped in this predicament.

[Doc Sportello]

8. Well said

Great takes on the problem and what it means for both the individual and the planet.

[Celerity]

10. it is hard to deal with, as if I had to name one word to describe the American zeitgeist, it is

[Mosby]

14. Per capita emissions is a garbage stat

We produce $65,000 per person, India is like 1900 bucks, China 10K. Those two countries produce more pollution than the rest of the world combined, and will continue to do so, despite the Guardian.

[hunter]

15. So?

Nature doesn't give a fuck about your income or nationality or where you were born.

One is human, or one is not.

[Mosby]

16. I was using per capita gdp numbers.

Americans have a much larger carbon footprint, but they produce a lot more with it.

The current top ten:


China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2

Good luck lowering emissions in China, India, Russia, Iran, Indonesia, KSA.

[hunter]

18. Well, that's our problem in a nutshell.

Too much shit.

I think we should pay people to experiment with lifestyles having very small environmental footprints.

We'd judge the success of those experiments in terms of happiness.

With any luck there would be widespread adoption of some of the happier aspects of these lifestyles.

People want to be happy, don't they?

For example, this world cannot sustainably support an automobile for every adult, not even an electric one, not for a human population of 8 billion. So how do we restructure our cities such that most people can't be bothered to own a car?

Are cheap factory farm meat and dairy products a necessity?

Why are real estate prices so much higher in the city than out in the distant suburbs? I thought suburban living was supposed to be wonderful! Shouldn't people be paying more for that?

Feel free to pick through my journal.

I don't apologize for being a radical environmentalist and humanist.

I think everyone in the world deserves healthy food, clean water, safe comfortable housing, appropriate medical care, and lifetime educational opportunities. How do we accomplish that?

The answer isn't "productivity" as we now define it. There's no point to any sort of "hard work" or producing "a lot more with it" if it's not making the world a better place.

Conventional work ethics are destroying this world.

[Mosby]

19. Good points. nt.

[calimary]

20. Excellent points, hunter.

They can get people thinking. Hopefully, anyway.

[burrowowl]

11. Kick!

Scary!

[dchill]

12. Shit. Glad I'm 70.

[calimary]

21. Yeah. I know how you feel, my friend.