(1/n)
#Scenarios 4 the #ClimateBreakdown by the The #Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (#PIK)
IMO, governments around the
are not telling their populations the truth abo4ut the next 30 years
via #WaPo
as of 05/12/22
The @wapo@twitter.com has asked one of the leading institutes on #ClimateChange, @PIK_climate, to reasses 2020 climate scenarios.
With the world's "leaders" failing to reach aggressive + binding actions on climate protection, earth is currently heading towards a...
2/n
..."high-#overshoot" scenario
, at least for the period of the 2040s through the 2060s.
Even bringing temperatures down after that involves maturity of nascent technologies and extremely challenging action by all industrialized and industrializing countries.
"
"But with the..."
3/n
"...world having already warmed by more than 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures [as per Nov., 2022,] achieving the goal is in grave doubt."
[To me, too, as of today, this, alas, seems quite unlikely for the foreseeable future, as many governments fail to be on track for even their low, self-determined #ClimateTargets.]
Having "examined over 1,200 different scenarios for #ClimateChange over the coming century
,..." the..."
4/n
... #PotsdamInstitute now shows, in my understanding, that avoiding an *at least* 1.8°C average temperature has become all but *unlikely*.
Combining this analysis with other research regarding sea-level rise, this means that at least 60,000 residents of small island states..
5/n
...will lose their mother country.
This is not even the worst news, however.
A +2°C scenario most likely will entail a total of about 5 million ocean-rise #ClimateRefugees
, according to scientific research:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaac87/meta?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template...
6/n
..."Out of more than 1,200 scenarios [the @wapo@twitter.com had analyzed] — some with temperatures rising as high as 5°C above preindustrial levels — only 230 paths leave our planet below 1.5°C before the end of the century."
[Note: this was published half a year before the now possibly imminent breakdown of the poles' ocean-cooling system, at least in #Antarctica:
https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/110933038351485958]
"Next,...scenarios that conflict with near-term reality,..."
7/n
...were eliminated im this funnel, "...leaving 112 paths that get us to 1.5°C by 2100."
"There are two different kinds of scenarios that leave the planet, in the year 2100, below 1.5C of warming. One involves a “#HighOvershoot,” but spending decades above 1.5C in such a..."
8/n
"...world is an unsettling prospect."
[PS:
...to which humanity, and in particular governments around the must finally face up and about the high likelihood of which they
must tell their populations the whole dire truth: #Overshoot, we can only try to assuage the effects of the #ClimateCatastrophy for today's adults!
#WakeUp and live up to the #ClimateEmergency!]
]
Next, it is "...worth focusing on those 26 scenarios that allow for only a “low” overshoot (or none at all)...
(9/n)
"...Many of these scenarios require the world, by mid-century, to go well beyond the popular “net zero” goal for fossil fuel emissions.
Rather, the world will have to be removing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it is putting in — “net negative.” And that will require the wide-scale deployment of nascent “#CarbonCapture” technologies to remove what is already present,..."
[PS:
...and You, dear reader, might well asses the likelihood of this yourself...]
(10/n)
"...When we change the assumption to a reasonable [scenario] for carbon dioxide removal and storage underground, [only] four paths to 1.5°C remain on the chart.
And when we look at only reasonable assumptions, there is *no path left*
.
[PS:
In other words, there is currently no scenario that will let us limit #GlobalWarming to an an already signicant global-warming target of just +1.5°C/ 2°F.
In one sentence: We are f*cked
There is a silver lining, though:]
"Still..."
(11/n)
...looking at low or no overshoot scenarios, we can [then] bring back 11 paths by choosing challenging
assumptions instead of only reasonable ones.
Much more dramatic #CarbonRemoval from the atmosphere, storing it either underground or in forests and agricultural landscapes. The majority of these scenarios require us to be able to subtract over 7 billion tons per year from the atmosphere by 2050
.
This will require a huge scale up of interventions like #CarbonCapture..."
(12/n)
...and storage, which only has an estimated capacity of about 43 million
tons per year today.
Some scenarios also require dramatic transformations of energy use
thanks to a combination of #renewables and vastly expanded energy efficiency.
Many require the carbon intensity of energy use — how much #CO2 is emitted per unit of energy consumed — to decrease by over 80 percent by 2050...."
(13/n)
"...This would require total or a *near total phaseout* of fossil fuels, widespread electrification of the world’s energy systems and major fuel shifts in transportation to electric vehicles or the use of other fuels
such as hydrogen or biofuels, among other innovations.
The other choice is to accept a fallback world in which the *temperature significantly overshoots 1.5C during the century*.
[PS:
So, World this I'd what it is--at least--it is
(14/n)
"...going to be, because the NOW known accelerated melting of pole ice was probably not yet factored in]
With temperatures expected to be between 1.6 and 1.8C above preindustrial levels through the 2040s, 2050s and 2060s in most of these scenarios, that would raise the odds of unexpected #ClimateCatastrophes.
But 16 scenarios allow for such a “#HighOvershoot” and are considered “reasonable”
To drive...
(15/n)
"...temperatures back down again in the second half of the century, the need for these interventions can be extremely large."
“Post 2050, these scenarios are *really challenging* because they require a very large amount of carbon dioxide removal to return temperature to below 1.5 degrees after a #HighOvershoot,”
That is where the world is currently..."
(16/16)
"...heading."
In brief, the question is whether human society is heading into the abyss, or whether technological progress will really be able to save humanity and thousands of other species from extinction?
We haven't got any more months to waste.
The #WarInUkraine
must come to an end, and a benign climate for humans rescued.
/END
@HistoPol I don't see any workable scenario. Fossil fuel elimination isn't practical unless removing all steel, concrete, and glass manufacturing is practical because there are no green energy solutions for those products. There are 1.5 billion fossil cars in the world - can we realistically stop them all quickly?
@HistoPol So, it's a pipe dream. We will need to figure out how to live with climate change. Eventually, mother earth will stop us and move on without us.
Hi @rgod8855
Yes, you got my point. The communication of governments must change.
How to live with the #ClimateCatastrophe (it is no "change" anymore. Per definition, this entails a change over a very extended period of time.)
I think there are solutions, some of which I have discussed in this convo in German.--You can read it using the translate function of some Fediverse tools (e.g. FediLab), though.
Considering re-writing and reposting it in English some time. No plan yet, though.
@HistoPol I should say I'm very pro de-fossilization to the fullest extent possible for a variety of reasons (pollution and health concerns, reliability of ICE machines, over drilling, etc.), just that the climate change argument for doing so is oversold. Between population growth and expansion due to underdeveloped countries to become fully developed, there is no going back and even slowing down carbon footprints is unlikely.
I did not doubt that, nor did I see a contradiction of any sort.
Why is the "#ClimateChange" argument oversold?
Yes, the only thing humanity might achieve in the medium term is to slow down the GROWTH RATE of the #ClimateCatastrophe (my personal opinion, based on a veteran #climatologist, @AndrewdDessler@mastodon.world.
I am exasperated that we are not undergoing mass-building projects (agriculture, water management, housing - see German thread.)
BTW, I am not familiar with "ICE machines"...?
The short answer is to this decisive question is: no, we can't. Politically, this will be untenable in the next couple of years. And then, it will be far too late.
We can and should, however, *mitigate* the impacts of this #ClimateCatastrophe for future generations, so that earth becomes better inhabitable for human beings again.
Exactly.
It could be dented, if more public transit became a #UBS, an #UniversalBasicService(s).