Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Bob Wallace

(549 posts)

5. Are we out of time?

Reply to hatrack (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 12:20 PM

Dec 2011

We might be. The just observed massive amounts of methane being emitted in the Arctic may be a sign that we've allowed too many amplifying forces to come into play for us to turn things around.

But we also have climate scientists telling us that we have about 40 years to get things 'fixed'.

Jacobson and Delucchi gave us a rough blueprint for changing to ~100% renewable, carbon free energy in 20 years. That, as they point out, would take considerable political will and a 'World War II' type effort.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

If we get scared enough we can give it a WWII effort. I think there's a good chance we haven't lost yet.

The dumbest thing we could do is to assume we have and not try to avoid the worst.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Der Spiegel: The Durban Climate Agreement 'Is Almost Useless' [View all] marmar Dec 2011 OP

And a different perspective... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #1

By the time they get around to discussing "negotiating legally binding restrictions"... joshcryer Dec 2011 #2

We're out of time - YOY increases in atmospheric GHG content in 2010 were 5.95% hatrack Dec 2011 #3

However, that 5.95% increase in emissions was after a decrease from 2008 to 2009 muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #4

The west has been relatively flat for decades, the increases are coming from India, China and the... joshcryer Dec 2011 #10

The annual increase had been slowing from 2003 to 2007 muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #15

2010 is the largest, though, and that's at the end of a deep recession. joshcryer Dec 2011 #17

Here, I plotted it with the 2008-2010 data: joshcryer Dec 2011 #18

Another interesting point about the subset of CO2 within the larger GHG growth picture: hatrack Dec 2011 #20

Are we out of time? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #5

Methane is 27 times more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2 txlibdem Dec 2011 #6

It does have a much shorter atmospheric life, but it's enough to cause glacial feedbacks... joshcryer Dec 2011 #8

Point of interest: the 20-odd time worse figure is averaged over a century. Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #11

Fair point. joshcryer Dec 2011 #12

Just let me say thank you for giving me nightmares for the next month NickB79 Dec 2011 #13

Average lifetime is something like 8 years Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #16

Oops. Nihil Dec 2011 #19

Unfortunatley it'd cost $100 trillion, or roughly 10%-15% global GDP every year for a decade. joshcryer Dec 2011 #9

Have to agree. Ice free arctic in 5 years tops. Methane releases beyond expectations. joshcryer Dec 2011 #7

A post from 2006 by hatrack: joshcryer Dec 2011 #14