Climate: Time Is Short, Part Two

Two days ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the third of four reports this year on the current state of global heating. This one, as distinct from the other two, also included an overview of the solutions to this civilizational crisis.

It was good that, once again, the work of the IPCC was in the news. The solutions they put forward were generally sound. And it was good that, although they put forward nuclear power as possibly in the mix, they also said, in the understated language of science, that “safety, weapons proliferation and waste remain as constraints.”

But it was disturbing to read in an Associated Press article that this report projected a range of between 450 to 650 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as the target range for the eventual stabilization of our climate in coming decades. It was disturbing because accepting anything higher than 400 ppm as an ultimate goal means accepting an unacceptably high level of risk of runaway global heating. And when I printed out and studied the IPCC’s 35-page “Summary for Policymakers,” it was even more disturbing to find “445 to 710″ used as the figure, and several places where it was implied that “490-540″ or “550″ ppm are OK as targets.

George Monbiot, in a May 1 column, “Giving Up On Two Degrees,” in the Guardian newspaper, blew the whistle on what was going on, and, as usual, he didn’t mince words:

ZMag