[MRSG] Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say

[Mad River Sustainability Group]

Dear MRSG,

Consider the magnitude of some of the numbers and dates in this Washington
Post article below, if you would.  And then please also consider coming to
the Carbon Shredders' free Low Carbon Diet training event, next Tuesday,
March 18 at the Big Picture Theater, 6-9pm.  I will follow up with more
information on the event shortly.  Thank you.


Dennis Derryberry
dennisd at madriver.com



> Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say
> By Juliet Eilperin
>  Washington Post Staff Writer
>  Monday, March 10, 2008; Page A01
>  The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a
> dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than 
previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published 
studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon 
emissions altogether within a matter of decades.
>  Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few
> weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must 
wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order  to
prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up 
sources of water worldwide.
> Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other 
aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon 
dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United 
States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world 
must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures  from
rising further.
> "The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?" 
asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of 
a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research 
Letters. "The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy 
system than people are thinking about."
> Although many nations have been pledging steps to curb emissions for 
nearly a decade, the world's output of carbon from human activities 
totals about 10 billion tons a year and has been steadily rising. For
now, at least, a goal of zero emissions appears well beyond the  reach
of politicians here and abroad. U.S. leaders are just beginning  to
grapple with setting any mandatory limit on greenhouse gases. The 
Senate is poised to vote in June on legislation that would reduce U.S. 
emissions by 70 percent by 2050; the two Democratic senators running 
for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), 
back an 80 percent cut. The Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John 
McCain (Ariz.), supports a 60 percent reduction by mid-century.
> Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is shepherding climate legislation 
through the Senate as chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, said the new findings "make it clear we must act now to 
address global warming."
> "It won't be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is 
compelling," she said. "It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can 
duck this issue and live with themselves."
> James L. Connaughton, who chairs the White House Council on
> Environmental Quality, offered a more guarded reaction, saying the  idea
that "ultimately you need to get to net-zero emissions" is  "something
we've heard before." When it comes to tackling such a  daunting
environmental and technological problem, he added: "We've  done this
kind of thing before. We will do it again. It will just take  a
sufficient amount of time."
> Until now, scientists and policymakers have generally described the 
problem in terms of halting the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere. 
The United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the 
question that way two decades ago, and many experts talk of limiting 
CO2concentrations to 450 parts per million (ppm).
> But Caldeira and Oregon State University professor Andreas Schmittner 
now argue that it makes more sense to focus on a temperature threshold 
as a better marker of when the planet will experience severe climate 
disruptions. The Earth has already warmed by 0.76 degrees Celsius 
(nearly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Most 
scientists warn that a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 
degrees Fahrenheit) could have serious consequences.
> Schmittner, lead author of a Feb. 14 article in the journal Global 
Biogeochemical Cycles, said his modeling indicates that if global 
emissions continue on a "business as usual" path for the rest of the 
century, the Earth will warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. If 
emissions do not drop to zero until 2300, he calculated, the
> temperature rise at that point would be more than 15 degrees
> Fahrenheit.
> CONTINUED     1    2     Next >
> More on washingtonpost.com