World Bank: Turn down the heat or say bye

[Hudson Jones]

A new report commissioned by the World Bank paints a picture of a world convulsed by rising temperatures. We're doomed if we do nothing about climate change say experts.

The thing is, even those who are making money from the status quo will be effected. So will they look at the impact this wil have on their grand children's world, and act? Will people show any urgency and stop pretending that it's not happening?

Humans must immediately implement a series of radical measures to halt carbon emissions or prepare for the collapse of entire ecosystems and the displacement, suffering and death of hundreds of millions of the globe’s inhabitants, according to a report commissioned by the World Bank. The continued failure to respond aggressively to climate change, the report warns, will mean that the planet will inevitably warm by at least 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, ushering in an apocalypse.

Link

[bush_cheney2004]

Then we're "doomed" again...big deal. We were "doomed" during the Cold War. We were "doomed" by pandemics. We were doomed by famine. We were doomed by multiple ice age glaciers and cooling. Mankind has always been "doomed" by something, so bring on the next chapter in the doomsday narrative.

More people will actually die from heart disease, stroke, respiratory infections, TB, diabetes, and motor vehicle accidents.

[Hudson Jones]

Then we're "doomed" again...big deal. We were "doomed" during the Cold War. We were "doomed" by pandemics. We were doomed by famine. We were doomed by multiple ice age glaciers and cooling. Mankind has always been "doomed" by something, so bring on the next chapter in the doomsday narrative.

More people will actually die from heart disease, stroke, respiratory infections, TB, diabetes, and motor vehicle accidents.

This is not a flue epidemic. This is the death of the ecosystem.

Why bring it on? Do you feel that our efforts cannot make a difference?

[bush_cheney2004]

This is not a flue epidemic. This is the death of the ecosystem.

Sorry, but 1918's version of "doom" via flu pandemic was taken far more seriously than climate change. It was a pandemic, not epidemic.

Why bring it on? Do you feel that our efforts cannot make a difference?

Because mankind's history is one of adaptation, not regressing back to the trees and savannahs. If this be doom, bring it on so I can watch it in hi def.

[Canuckistani]

This is not a flue epidemic. This is the death of the ecosystem.

Total bs. It's a shift of the ecosystem. One that humans may find harder to live in, but not even the end of humans. We've had much warmer global temps in the past without it being the death of the global ecsystem. It's this sort of overstatement that gives global warming fanatics as bad a name as the deniers.

[wyly]

Total bs. It's a shift of the ecosystem. One that humans may find harder to live in, but not even the end of humans. We've had much warmer global temps in the past without it being the death of the global ecsystem. It's this sort of overstatement that gives global warming fanatics as bad a name as the deniers.

you're not seeing the bigger picture here...it absolutely has potential to end our civilization...climate change caused a number of mass extinction events believing human technolgy can save us if there is widespread ecological collapse is very dangerous...being blind to the possibility is more dangerous than accepting it as a potential reality...it's better to be overly concerned with the dangers and be wrong than ignorant and dead... Edited November 27, 2012 by wyly

[gunrutz]

Accepting possibilities is a two way street, reducing pollution should be a goal, but unless you want us to turn off the lights or the China's and India's to give up modernizing or cut their population to reduce their emissions the future holds more co2 for all of us. So instead of constantly telling people what has to happen, tell us how it is to REALISTICALLY happen. You're all big on problems but not real solutions.

[Guest]

Exactly. If the problem is as dire as they say it is, what makes them think we can possibly do anything about it? A few more Priuses on the road, a few more windmills?

We've know about the problem for decades and the best we have been able to do is slow the rate of increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We haven't come close to capping the concentration, never mind reducing it.

Forced sterilization for every child born on the planet from now on, with reversal only under the strictest conditions, might help given fifty years or so. I wonder if they'll do that. Or maybe they'll just put another banner on a crane at the Oil Sands instead. That should do it.

Edited November 27, 2012 by bcsapper

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly. If the problem is as dire as they say it is, what makes them think we can possibly do anything about it? A few more Priuses on the road, a few more windmills?

Not to mention the big asteroid heading our way. Or comet strike. Or magnetic polar shift. So much to worry about....or not.

[wyly]

Exactly. If the problem is as dire as they say it is, what makes them think we can possibly do anything about it? A few more Priuses on the road, a few more windmills?

We've know about the problem for decades and the best we have been able to do is slow the rate of increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We haven't come close to capping the concentration, never mind reducing it.

Forced sterilization for every child born on the planet from now on, with reversal only under the strictest conditions, might help given fifty years or so. I wonder if they'll do that. Or maybe they'll just put another banner on a crane at the Oil Sands instead. That should do it.

which is been the point people have been making if we do nothing disaster is in the cards...shrugging it off and saying oh well what can I do is the reason we get nothing done...not punishing governments for inaction iswhy progress is slow...

[Guest]

which is been the point people have been making if we do nothing disaster is in the cards...shrugging it off and saying oh well what can I do is the reason we get nothing done...not punishing governments for inaction iswhy progress is slow...

But do you want to spend billions ineffectively when they could be spent preparing for what is coming?

A new wind farm would not do as much as a decent levee for the population of New York or New Orleans, for example.

Given the population increase since the industrial revolution, I doubt that there would have been any measures that we as a species could have taken at any point since the balloon first went up on this issue that would have made any substantial difference. Not unless we kept the third world in mud huts.

[wyly]

But do you want to spend billions ineffectively when they could be spent preparing for what is coming?

if the "worst" case scenario happens there is no prepartion possible...should've spent it on prevention...

A new wind farm would not do as much as a decent levee for the population of New York or New Orleans, for example..

a flooded new orleans will be minor in comparison to the potential drop in food production...

Given the population increase since the industrial revolution, I doubt that there would have been any measures that we as a species could have taken at any point since the balloon first went up on this issue that would have made any substantial difference. Not unless we kept the third world in mud huts

well the chinese have taken drastic measures with their one child policy and it will have an effect...part of the third world's problem is us, we were happy to profit from their low labour costs which kept them in third world status...the third world's salvation is improvement of their standard of living and with that education...education reduces population growth....

[TimG]

The continued failure to respond aggressively to climate change, the report warns, will mean that the planet will inevitably warm by at least 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, ushering in an apocalypse.

Complete and total nonsense that completely misrepresents the state of the science. This type of propaganda is typical of the enviro-loonies. It is disappointing to see the world bank buy into this nonsense.

On top of that we have this rather pathetic call to hunt 'unicorns' (a.k.a non-CO2 emitting sources that can meet the needs of society at reasonable cost). The predictions are pretty irrelevant even if they were not misrepresented because we can't really change global CO2 emissions because the technology does not exist.

If we really want to do something then adaptation is the only option.

i.e. build levees not wind mills

maybe we could make that a t-shirt?

Edited November 27, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

If we really want to do something then adaptation is the only option.

This is nothing more than a complete unsubstantiated religious belief.

The predictions are pretty irrelevant even if they were not misrepresented because we can't really change global CO2 emissions because the technology does not exist.

All kinds of technologies exist that can make a difference. We are going to have a billion more industrialized consumers over the next few decades and even if the ammount of CO2 emissions they are responsible for is reduced 20% that would be huge. The technology is already there...you can go 60 miles with a gallon of gas, or you can go 15. And energy plants built in the around the world can be old dirty plants or cleaner modern ones.

And meanwhile smart people all around the world are working on developing new energy technologies and making new ones cleaner. We will be building coal plants by 2025 that generate only a fraction of the CO2 that plants emmit today. Patent: 20100028241 is a particularly interesting one, but there are thousands more.

Edited November 27, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

We will be building coal plants by 2025 that generate only a fraction of the CO2 that plants emmit today.

Great! Except more efficient coal or natural gas are not 'radical measures to halt carbon emissions'. The are incremental measures that will slow the growth. The only viable CO2 free energy source today nuclear and those plants are being shutdown and will be replaced by these 'efficient' coal plants - which generally adds up to an increase in emissions.

In other words, by presenting incremental improvements that can only slow the growth of emissions you are actually providing evidence to support my characterization of the world bank statement as a 'unicorn hunt'.

Now if the the world bank has said something like 'we should do what we can to slow the growth of emissions' then it would have had some basis in reality. But they didn't they said we need 'radical measures to halt carbon emissions'. Which is nothing but a fantasy.

[dre]

Great! Except more efficient coal or natural gas are not 'radical measures to halt carbon emissions'. The are incremental measures that will slow the growth. The only viable CO2 free energy source today nuclear and those plants are being shutdown and will be replaced by these 'efficient' coal plants - which generally adds up to an increase in emissions.

In other words, by presenting incremental improvements that can only slow the growth of emissions you are actually providing evidence to support my characterization of the world bank statement as a 'unicorn hunt'.

Now if the the world bank has said something like 'we should do what we can to slow the growth of emissions' then it would have had some basis in reality. But they didn't they said we need 'radical measures to halt carbon emissions'. Which is nothing but a fantasy.

I was responding to YOUR statement, not theirs.

Here it is again...

because we can't really change global CO2 emissions because the technology does not exist.

Its completely and total abject silliness. Patently false. The technologies we already have, and the ones in the pipe (like the patent I mentioned that could make it profitable for coal and gas fired plants to have zero CO2 emissions) can make a gigantic difference in how much CO2 we emmit and how fast CO2 emissions shrink or grow.

[TimG]

I was responding to YOUR statement, not theirs.

But my statement was a response to their's and you can't interpret my statement without looking at that context. If you ignore context you could take my statement in isolation to mean we could not cause emissions to increase either - but you know I did not mean that - so you can't claim you just responded to the literal meaning of the words.

If I were to rewrite the statement to deal with people keen to argue strawmen I would say 'we can't really stop global CO2 emissions...'. Anyone who looked at the context would know that is what was intended.

Edited November 27, 2012 by TimG

[Guest]

And meanwhile smart people all around the world are working on developing new energy technologies and making new ones cleaner. We will be building coal plants by 2025 that generate only a fraction of the CO2 that plants emmit today. Patent: 20100028241 is a particularly interesting one, but there are thousands more.

Well, good! Problem solved by 2025, then. Had me worried there for a minute.

[Guest]

What about geo engineering? The proposal to place tonnes of sulfates into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, for example? I would be afraid more of the cure than the disease, but that's just me. What do you all think?

[wyly]

I was responding to YOUR statement, not theirs.

Here it is again...

Its completely and total abject silliness. Patently false. The technologies we already have, and the ones in the pipe (like the patent I mentioned that could make it profitable for coal and gas fired plants to have zero CO2 emissions) can make a gigantic difference in how much CO2 we emmit and how fast CO2 emissions shrink or grow.

that's true the technology is already here we're just avoiding/delaying the increased cost of it...going after greener technologies will accelerate technological advances...

this levee's vs windmills is fantasy the cost of windmills is a fraction the cost of levee's...do a search on rising sea levels to get an idea of just how many thousands of kilometers of levees are required around the globe, then add in the cost of movable river surge barriers, the cost will be in the trillions, the cost of not doing it will be many trillions more...a single surge barrier in the netherlands completed in 1997 cost $7 billion how many windmills can be built for 7 billion? about 4.5K...prevention is cheaper...

[wyly]

What about geo engineering? The proposal to place tonnes of sulfates into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, for example? I would be afraid more of the cure than the disease, but that's just me. What do you all think?

sulfates...acid rain...not a great idea...

the last thing we want to do muck around with geo-engineering it's very dangerous to start down that path...the best plan is help the atmosphere to recover the earth does a good job of regulating our temp until we interfere by playing with the atmosphere, which we have done and are paying the price for...

[TimG]

how many windmills can be built for 7 billion? about 4.5K...prevention is cheaper...

Except wind mills have absolutely no effect on global C02 emissions since they produce almost no useful power. Also - the level might rise a whole 1 meter in the next 100 years. Less that the tidal surge that many coast lines already deal with.

[dre]

Except wind mills have absolutely no effect on global C02 emissions since they produce almost no useful power.

Problem is thats just more of your religious dogma.

[wyly]

Except wind mills have absolutely no effect on global C02 emissions since they produce almost no useful power.

Also - the level might rise a whole 1 meter in the next 100 years. Less that the tidal surge that many coast lines already deal with.

one meter vertical do you have any concept of what that translates to in a horizontal plane, how that relates to storm surges, tidal action, evidently not ...that's the big problem with denierworld, very limited view of the big picture...

[TimG]

Problem is thats just more of your religious dogma.

Try adding up the amount of power that is generated by wind in a year multiply it by the CO2 emitted by natural gas generation per kWh and express it as a percentage of human CO2 emissions in a year. You will find its effect is insignificant.

Your insistence that wind mills will make any difference is nothing but religious dogma.

Edited November 28, 2012 by TimG