PunkpOsse

link http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/arc...er-for-t-3.html

Game over for the climate? (3)

May 17, 2012 2:01 AM | 3 Comments

Our problem, of course, is we didn't just start this party. Most of the cake has been eaten. There's not much beer left in the keg. We already put up 500 billion tons of the bad stuff in the sky. And by bad stuff, I mean extra carbon. Carbon, like food and money is not bad. But our use of these physical substances can be bad. We can eat too much, spend too much or burn too much. Eventually, at the rate and speed we are traveling down the carbon consumption road, we are headed for disaster. Or as Hansen described it, "game over."

So we have a choice. Burn 250 billion more tons and only suffer a 25 percent risk of catastrophe or we can burn 500 billion tons and increase our odds to 50 percent. Of course, there is always the possibility we will burn another trillion tons or more, which would be incredibly stupid and likely result in the unspeakable.

So how much time does this give us? Well, it took us 250 years to burn the first half-trillion tons but our current trajectory will get us there in 20 to 40. Sometime between 2030 and 2050. And that doesn't mean burn like crazy until New Year's eve in 20 years. That means we have to start reducing now if we are to be able to really quit in two decades.

Which brings us to Hansen's "game over" scenario. Some call him an alarmist or a pessimist. I call him a realist. He is describing what he sees. What I see. What you see if you look.

What I see is humans burning fossil fuels and causing global warming which is causing the Arctic ice to melt. And instead of being alarmed, humans see this as an opportunity to drill for more oil and burn it and cause more global warming. And "if we were to burn all the proven reserves of fossil fuels, this would inject nearly three times the carbon budget into the atmosphere."

Is there a drop of oil on Earth we don't want to drill and burn? And the coal? According to Bill Hare of the Potsdam institute, "(W)e can burn less than one-quarter of known economically recoverable fossil-fuel reserves between now and 2050", and while "a lot of the oil and natural gas can be burned, certainly not much at all of coals reserves can."

Not burn coal? How likely is that?

And then there is this problem with Canadian oil sands. Remember what Hansen said? He said, "If Canada proceeds, (and exploits the oil in its vast tar sands reserves) and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate."

Scientists tell us we "have a good chance of staying below 2Â°C (if) global emissions...start falling after 2015. Achieving this will be no small feat: at present we emit between 1% and 3% more each year than we did the year before. That trend must be reversed within six years." And since this was written three years ago, that means we have three years left.

Game over? It's up to us.