14 April 2016, The Guardian, World’s scientists to join forces on major 1.5C climate change report. Special UN report will offer comprehensive assessment of impacts of a 1.5C rise in global warming on sea level, coral bleaching and biodiversity. Scientists from around the world will contribute to a major UN report on how global temperatures can be held to a rise of 1.5C and what the impact might be on sea level rises, the bleaching of corals and biodiversity. The special report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will assess all the available peer-reviewed science along with other special reports on how land and oceans are being affected by climate change. These will look at the melting of ice in polar and mountain regions, as well as the impact of climate change on cities and food supplies. “We now have a roadmap for the next comprehensive assessment which will be published in 2022, in good time for the global stocktake by governments in 2023,” said Hoesung Lee, chair of the panel, in Nairobi. The 1.5C report was requested by governments meeting at the Paris climate talks in December where countries unexpectedly agreed to “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. 1.5C marks the point, say many scientists, where there is a real danger of serious “tipping points” in the world’s climate. Temperatures have already risen 1C and show little sign of slowing. “Before the Paris meeting governments were focussing on [a rise of ] 2C. The latest assessment by the IPCC showed that some serious risks to corals and sea-level rise emerge at 1.5C. But there was not much available [science] on these topics. There is a lot we need to find out about 1.5C. We are ready to embark on this,” said Lee. “Limiting warming to 1.5C will be a significant challenge,” said Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science at Oxford university’s Environmental Change Institute (ECI). “In a nutshell, it means we have to reduce emissions twice as fast as we would have done to limit warming to 2C – and that was already looking challenging. Inevitably, people are already starting to ask if it is worth it. These are big tough questions, and we haven’t much time to answer them, so the academic community needs to step up.” Read More here
Yearly Archives: 2016
14 April 2016, Kelvin Thompson MP, Population Growth Driving Infrastructure Deficit. Josh Gordon is absolutely right to raise the problems associated with Melbourne’s rapid population growth of the past decade. It is absolutely correct that politicians and economists are allowed to get away with murder by talking about economic growth when they should be required to talk about GDP per capita. It is like saying that because more people have moved into your street, that the street has more money, and therefore you are richer. You are not personally richer at all – indeed the probability is that your street is more crowded and that in amenity you are poorer. Melbourne’s rapid population growth is the reason there is an infrastructure problem. The Queensland academic Jane O’Sullivan has done research which shows that in a stable population the community needs to set aside around 2 per cent of its income to repair and replace ageing infrastructure, but that in a community growing by 1 per cent it needs to set aside 3 per cent of its income to keep up, and in a community growing by 2 per cent it needs to set aside 4 per cent of its income. The infrastructure task doubles, with only 2 per cent extra people to pay for it. Read More here
14 April 2016, Climate News Network, Investors warned: Forget fossil fuels. Historic change heralded as investors are told they face losing their money if they continue to back the fossil fuel industry that is causing disastrous global warming. The head of a global philanthropic foundation says that the world turning away from fossil fuels is a critical moment in human history, akin to the abolition of slavery. Ellen Dorsey, executive director of the US-based Wallace Global Fund, told a packed conference in Oxford, UK, this week: “We are right in the middle of a transition − not to try to curb the burning of the fuels, but to end the fossil fuel industry altogether. The industry will be one for the history books, much like slavery” The conference, organised by the Divest Invest movement, was held to assess progress in convincing the financial sector that it will lose its money if it continues to invest in fossil fuels. The movement involves 500 organisations − with a combined wealth of more than $3.4 trillion − that have already pledged to divest from fossil fuels and invest in climate solutions. Sarah Butler-Sloss, founder director of the Ashden Trust, a leader in the field of green energy and sustainable development, opened the conference and stressed: “We are not making a sacrifice. We have gained money from not investing in fossil fuels.” Read More here
13 April 2016, The Guardian, It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming. There is an overwhelming expert scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. Authors of seven previous climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes,Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton,John Cook, myself, and six of our colleagues — have co-authored a new paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper: Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support. Read More here