Nobel Laureates: CO2 Emissions Must Peak by 2015 to Avert Climate Ruin

The world must confine the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius or it will face an apocalyptic situation where climate change is no longer within our control. That was the message delivered this week by a group of Nobel laureates meeting in London.
How can this be accomplished? By ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions peak by 2015 and then drop to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
For starters, developed countries would need to cut their emissions 25-40 percent by 2020.
"If this is delayed by even five years and emissions peak in 2020, we will need to reduce emissions by 6 percent annually thereafter," John Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute on Climate Impact Research in Germany, which organized the gathering, told Nature.
The St. James's Palace Nobel Laureate Memorandum was directed at nations taking part in the Copenhagen climate talks. Unfortunately, it's yet another S.O.S. sent by leading scientists that's destined to fall on deaf years.
Here's where things stand:
The 27-nation EU bloc, which accounts for about 14 percent of global emissions, has agreed to a 20 percent emissions cut by 2020 from 1990 levels. It will up that commitment to 30 percent by 2020 if other wealthy nations make comparable efforts. Not likely.
The ACES climate bill wending its way through the U.S. Congress targets a 17 percent cut below 2005 levels by 2020. That would be about 4 percent below 1990 levels, according to figures from the World Resources Institute.
China, the world's leading carbon polluter, has refused hard caps altogether, although it may budge if the U.S. delivers a strong commitment to tougher targets. Problem is, China's public position is for the developed world to meet a politically untenable 40 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020.
On top of emissions cuts, the Nobel laureates urged carbon pricing across much of the global economy, financial support for adaptation and emergency measures to prevent deforestation. All of their recommendations are rooted in peer-reviewed science.
"The robust scientific process, by which this evidence has been gathered, should be used as a clear mandate to accelerate the actions that need to be taken. Political leaders cannot possibly ask for a more robust, evidence-based call for action," the memorandum says.
Indeed, the evidence keeps piling up to an unavoidable fact. Emissions growth is spiraling out of control.
Have a look at what's come to light just this month:
Greenhouse gas emissions skyrocketed 15 percent between 2000 and 2005, according to new numbers from the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research or "EDGAR." For context, the rate of emissions growth was just 3 percent for the period 1990-1995 and 6 percent between 1995 and 2000.
The future looks even worse. Without a global treaty, carbon emissions will surge nearly 39 percent by 2030, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted this week.
And in another new report, MIT researchers revealed that Earth's median surface temperature could rise 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. That makes the problem about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago, and it could be even worse than that. Under the current do-nothing scenario, the researchers claim there is a less than 1 percent chance of under 3 degree Celsius warming by century's end. Keep in mind, the 2 degree threshold is now considered a dangerous level by some experts.
"There's no way the world can or should take these risks," said study co-author Ronald Prinn.
Economic losses from unchecked climate change already amount to over $160 billion annually. That number is expected to rise to $345 billion each year by 2030, according to a new report commissioned by the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum. The human losses are soaring, too. The study reveals that climate change kills about 315,000 people a year through hunger, sickness and weather disasters. By 2030, that figure will to climb to half a million or higher.
The world's poorest are bearing more than nine-tenths of that economic and human burden. But richer nations, most notably the U.S., will not be spared. According to new research published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, Greenland's ice is melting at a rate of 7 percent a year. If that continues, sea levels off the northeast U.S. coast could rise this century by 12 to 20 inches more than other coastal areas this century.
Once again, this is a far bleaker assessment than previous research.
On Monday, June 1 – at a time when the "no-policy projections" look worse than ever – the next round of climate talks will kick off in Bonn, Germany. There, policymakers will start whittling down the final negotiating text for a new global climate deal that is being called the most important treaty the world has ever negotiated.
Failing is not an option.
As the Nobel laureates wrote:
"We know what needs to be done. We cannot wait until it is too late. We cannot wait until what we value most is lost."














Light at night and the "hidden" harm of the 24 hour day?
You will all have heard of light pollution. This has been created by power utilities to make energy supply cheap and easy.
The 24 hour day however is killing off life on Earth and it has been doing this slowly, at least since 1897. Don't waste energy by using unnecessary light at night. Just turn them off and reduce CO2 emissions, global warming and climate change. It's real easy but no-one cares so in the end we will be JTL - Just Too Late? Frankly I don't care - I will be dead by then but I will not fail to advise against ignoring the precautionary principle. Without caution we face a very unhappy future as politicians offer only crisis management for the future failures that we now face. The recent failure on Wall Street was nothing to that which we ALL face now and I am optimistic that they will listen - they will just have to listen!
Dear sir Rich nations have 1
Dear sir
Rich nations have 1 billion residents producing 75 per cent of the the global output emitting 50 per cent of the global CO2.
Poor nations have 5 billion residents producing 25 per cent of the global output emitting 50 per cent of the global CO2. In addition, poor nations have also begun importing toxic waste from rich nations.
This vicious cycle has one inevitable conclusion. In just one generation, soil, air and water would become toxic. Diseases, epidemics, famines, riots and migrations are set to rise in the poor nations without vigorous leadership.
We can improve the microclimate around us
The very thought of an entire generation of children being 'ecologically deprived' at present levels (the baseline?) and the situation further eroding sends shivers up my spine. I grew up where nature was plentiful - frogs, toads, butterflies, amazing birds were abundant. Now I have found a mere one toad in my yard. How will it reproduce?
Everyone elses yard around me is so sterile and immaculate. Groomed. Weed-free. Fruit-bearing shrub-free. The trees are not doing very well. There two largest in my yard are going to die from disease. No one seems to quite realize we are 'painting ourselves into a corner' by removing habitat for so many species.
The atmospheric CO2, combined with the pollution and heat of summer has caused so much stress for trees and the decline in the numbers of birds that remove many pests is killing off even what has been traditionally counted on as resistant trees. Trees we count on thriving on boulevards of urban areas (the maple tree, here in Canada), and certain ash trees, are succumbing to all sorts of ailments. All the same, I have planted 10 more trees (8 cedar) and shrubs. Already it seems to have made a difference, in that I am seeing more birds and a possible mate for the toad.
Methane is worse than carbon
Can someone tell me why the major accelerator for global warming, methane, was ignored? I am disappointed that there are no efforts to find a solution for that, especially when the Animal Farming Industry was named the number one environmental hazard in the Livestock's Long Shadow UN report. Only reducing carbon emissions will not let us escape this global calamity. I hope we can see 2015 in our lifetime.
Carbon emission
Good intentions, but we have to look out for its implementation by the corporates. The poor and developign nations suffer most with less carbon emissions than the advanced nations. An effective world opinion must continue to be created through various channels like newspapers, TV and the Internet.
Post new comment