Global carbon dioxide in atmosphere passes milestone level

[Lenny_Bruce]

Its now been several million years since C02 levels were this high.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/10/carbon-dioxide-highest-level-greenhouse-gas

Edited May 10, 2013 by Lenny_Bruce

[TimG]

Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

World population 7 billion or 10 billion. No big deal. It's just a number

[TimG]

World population 7 billion or 10 billion. No big deal. It's just a number

Humans are the only species that limits their reproduction. Birthrates are falling everywhere.

[Wilber]

Humans are the only species that limits their reproduction. Birthrates are falling everywhere.

Then how did the world population increase by 30% between 1990 and 2011? In 2011 there was a net increase of 78 million according to the UN. Human population is dictated by environment, just like every other species. If we continue to engineer the environment for our own purposes and to the detriment of others, our fate will inevitably be the same.

[TimG]

Then how did the world population increase by 30% between 1990 and 2011? In 2011 there was a net increase of 78 million according to the UN.

Birthrates are falling everywhere from the US to Ethiopia. The more a society develops the slower the population grows. Most industrialized society are now shrinking. The population in 2100 may be less than the population today even as the standard of living increases. Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

Then how did the world population increase by 30% between 1990 and 2011? In 2011 there was a net increase of 78 million according to the UN. Human population is dictated by environment, just like every other species. If we continue to engineer the environment for our own purposes and to the detriment of others, our fate will inevitably be the same.

Human population is not dictated by the environment just like every other species. The key drivers of driving down birth rates are:

-Education of women

-Increased human development

Paradoxically, the lower the infant/maternal mortality and the longer the life expectancy - the lower the birth rate/population growth. This is a proven relationship across many countries.

Also, I would argue that to "save the environment" we need more human development and a greater standard of living. Again it seems paradoxical but think about it: where are the cleanest cities? Where are lakes, rivers, oceans and forests most protected? Where are the strictest environmental laws?

[Lenny_Bruce]

The carbon culture death wish.

[eyeball]

Also, I would argue that to "save the environment" we need more human development and a greater standard of living.

I agree but it seems some one/thing also needs to make stinking rich people putridly rich. I guess every one/thing else can either adapt or go extinct. It's not like there's a lack of choices here.

[ReeferMadness]

Also, I would argue that to "save the environment" we need more human development and a greater standard of living. Again it seems paradoxical but think about it: where are the cleanest cities? Where are lakes, rivers, oceans and forests most protected? Where are the strictest environmental laws?

Spoken like a true believing follower of the cult of GDP. Pursuing rampantly wasteful lifestyles might be one way of developing (assuming of course that there are always sufficient resources to allow this and sufficient other places to put the garbage) but it's hardly the only one.

The cleanest cities are those that developed first and are now able to export their garbage somewhere poorer. Technological garbage is sent to poor places where the residents extract rare metals out of toxic materials as their health deteriorates.

And as for environmental laws, ours are weaker with each year that the Harper knuckle-dragging team stays in control.

[ReeferMadness]

The carbon culture death wish.

That's perfect - where did you find it?

[carepov]

Spoken like a true believing follower of the cult of GDP. Pursuing rampantly wasteful lifestyles might be one way of developing (assuming of course that there are always sufficient resources to allow this and sufficient other places to put the garbage) but it's hardly the only one.

The cleanest cities are those that developed first and are now able to export their garbage somewhere poorer. Technological garbage is sent to poor places where the residents extract rare metals out of toxic materials as their health deteriorates.

And as for environmental laws, ours are weaker with each year that the Harper knuckle-dragging team stays in control.

You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying.

-I am not a follower of the cult of GDP.

-I abhor waste

-I am advocating for for sustainable human development that reduces global poverty

Again, where are lakes, rivers, oceans and forests cleanest most protected? Where are the strictest environmental laws and regulations (including those that deal with e-waste and prevent their export)? Why do these places protect the environment?

What are your ideas on how to "save the environment"?

[Moonlight Graham]

Birthrates are falling everywhere from the US to Ethiopia. The more a society develops the slower the population grows. Most industrialized society are now shrinking. The population in 2100 may be less than the population today even as the standard of living increases.

The vast majority of countries are experiencing population growth. The world continues to experience population growth. Global birth rate is falling, but global life expectancy rate is rising. Decreasing births so far hasn't outweighed decreasing deaths. It may be that at some point the reverse will happen (i'd bet it does), but # of children per woman is a matter of culture and not just social development.

I hope the population does start to shrink, because if most countries in the world eventually become industrialized/ highly economically developed, and consume resources at the amount that western countries do, I would doubt the earth could sustain 7+ billion people. It would take huge leaps in technology to even fathom the possibility. Even if 100% sustainable/green energy were implemented, imagine the food, fresh water, minerals, lumber, plastics, waste disposal etc. needed to support a global population that consumed at a standard of living that people in Canada/US do.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

It may be that at some point the reverse will happen (i'd bet it does), but # of children per woman is a matter of culture and not just social development.

I tried to find this awesome video about infant mortality and birthrates - it showed how these have changed over time and how every country in the world has seen huge changes on both fronts. We are well on our way to a declining global population in 30 years.

[ReeferMadness]

You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying.

-I am not a follower of the cult of GDP.

-I abhor waste

-I am advocating for for sustainable human development that reduces global poverty

What are your ideas on how to "save the environment"?

You and I can agree on the goal of "sustainable development" - but what does that mean? To me, it means hard caps on the overall impact to the planet inflicted by our species as a whole. And those hard caps are set cautiously according to scientific consensus at a point in time.

Again, where are lakes, rivers, oceans and forests cleanest most protected? Where are the strictest environmental laws and regulations (including those that deal with e-waste and prevent their export)? Why do these places protect the environment?

Lakes, rivers and oceans are cleanest where they have not been impacted by industrial development. That, unfortunately, doesn't leave much. If you're contending that overall, rich countries are cleaner than poor ones, that's an interesting thesis. Perhaps you could support it with data. I would say (again) that rich countries don't pollute less than poor ones (on a per capita basis). However, they do export their pollution to poor countries.

[TimG]

To me, it means hard caps on the overall impact to the planet inflicted by our species as a whole.

So if the scientific consensus says that meeting those 'hard caps' requires that large number of people need to be killed off do you favour abandoning those 'hard' caps or should we simply engage in wholesale slaughter?

[waldo]

So if the scientific consensus says that meeting those 'hard caps' requires that large number of people need to be killed off do you favour abandoning those 'hard' caps or should we simply engage in wholesale slaughter?

is that a requirement of the scientific consensus?

[waldo]

NASA scientists react to 400 ppm carbon milestone

Passing the 400 mark reminds me that we are on an inexorable march to 450 ppm and much higher levels. These were the targets for 'stabilization' suggested not too long ago. The world is quickening the rate of accumulation of CO2, and has shown no signs of slowing this down. It should be a psychological tripwire for everyone.
– Dr. Michael Gunson
Global Change & Energy Program Manager; Project Scientist, Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite mission - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory


CO2 concentrations haven't been this high in millions of years. Even more alarming is the rate of increase in the last five decades and the fact that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years. This milestone is a wake up call that our actions in response to climate change need to match the persistent rise in CO2. Climate change is a threat to life on Earth and we can no longer afford to be spectators.
– Dr. Erika Podest
Carbon and water cycle research scientist


In some ways, 400 ppm is just a number, another milestone that we are blasting past at a rate that is now exceeding 2 ppm per year. Over time, this number takes on greater weight. It brings home the fact that fossil fuel combustion, land use practices, and human activities have increased the CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere by more the 20 percent since I was born. Wow!
– Dr. David Crisp
Principal Investigator, Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite mission; works on the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) Project, a joint effort with the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency


Reaching 400pm is a stark reminder that the world is still not on a track to limit CO2 emissions and therefore climate impacts. We're still on the 'business-as-usual' path, and adding more and more CO2, which will impact the generations ahead of us. Passing this mark should motivate us to advocate for focused efforts to reduce emissions across the globe.
– Dr. Annmarie Eldering
Deputy Project Scientist, Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite mission – NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory


Current [atmospheric] CO2 values are more than 100 ppm higher than at any time in the last one million years (and maybe higher than any time in the last 25 million years). This new record represents an increase of 85 ppm in the 55 years since David Keeling began making measurements at Mauna Loa. Even more disturbing than the magnitude of this change is the fact that the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing over the last few decades, meaning that future increases will happen faster. When averaged over 55 years, the increase has been about 1.55 ppm CO2 per year. However, the most recent data suggest that the annual increase is more than 2.75 ppm CO2 per year.
These increases in atmospheric CO2 are causing real, significant changes in the Earth system now, not in some distant future climate, and will continue to be felt for centuries to come. We can study these impacts to better understand the way the Earth will respond to future changes, but unless serious actions are taken immediately, we risk the next threshold being a point of no return in mankind's unintended global-scale geoengineering experiment.
– Dr. Charles Miller
Researcher specializing in the remote sensing of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; Principal investigator, Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE) mission


Reaching the 400 ppm mark should be a reminder for us that carbon dioxide levels have been shooting up at an alarming rate in the recent past due to human activity. Levels that high have only been reached during the Pliocene era, when temperatures and sea level were higher. However, Earth's climate had never had to deal with such a drastic change as the current increase, which is, therefore, likely to have unexpected implications for our environment.
– Dr. Carmen Boening
Scientist, Climate Physics Group – NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

[carepov]

You and I can agree on the goal of "sustainable development" - but what does that mean? To me, it means hard caps on the overall impact to the planet inflicted by our species as a whole. And those hard caps are set cautiously according to scientific consensus at a point in time.

"overall impact to the planet" is impossible to measure, therefore your idea on "hard caps" is a non-starter

from wiki:

Sustainable development refers to a mode of human development in which resource use aims to meet human needs while ensuring the sustainability of natural systems and the environment, so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come.

To me a sustainable practice means that the practice can essentially go on forever (or at least let's say 1000 years). AFAIK:

-forestry in NA and Europe is sustainable

-overfishing the oceans is unsustainable but aquaculture is sustainable

-agricultural practices are generally more sustainable when GM technology is used

-Nuclear energy is more sustainable than burning fossil fuels and today's wind and solar

-Overall, the way we humans currently live is unsustainable

Lakes, rivers and oceans are cleanest where they have not been impacted by industrial development. That, unfortunately, doesn't leave much. If you're contending that overall, rich countries are cleaner than poor ones, that's an interesting thesis. Perhaps you could support it with data. I would say (again) that rich countries don't pollute less than poor ones (on a per capita basis). However, they do export their pollution to poor countries.

I agree that undeveloped areas are the cleanest. However my thesis is that overall richer countries have cleaner air and water and better environmental protection than poorer ones. I do not have data now, I will post as time permits. In the meantime, ask yourself:

In which countries would you find a lake/river in a developed area and jump in and even drink the water? USA/EU/Japan, or BRIC?

In rich countries, hasn't water quality dramatically improved in the last 40 years despite increased development?

Which large cities have the best air quality?

Where is there the most litter and garbage lying around? USA/EU/Japan, or BRIC?

Where is tree coverage stable and where are forest being cut down?

During the cold war, why was there so much pollution in Russia/Eastern Europe compared to Western Europe?

You may have a point about exporting pollution from rich to poor countries, however, my understanding is that we are starting to see laws that prohibit this practice. Guess which places are the first to ban the export if dangerous pollutants/e-waste - the rich countries.

To "save the planet" we need:

-reduced waste in the West (energy, food)

-switch from coal to nuclear energy

-reduce poverty of the 3,000,000,000 people living on <$2/day - this means sustainable development. is needed. In this I agree with the aproach of the Millennium Goals