Quantcast
Climate
www.facebook.com

Kids Suing Trump Get Helping Hand From World's Most Famous Climate Scientist

By Tim Radford

One of the world's most famous climate scientists has just calculated the financial burden that tomorrow's young citizens will face to keep the globe at a habitable temperature and contain global warming and climate change—a $535 trillion bill.

And much of that will go on expensive technologies engineered to suck 1,000 billion metric tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the air by the year 2100.


Of course, if humans started to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six percent a year right now, the end of the century challenge would be to take 150 billion tonnes from the atmosphere, and most of this could be achieved simply by better forest and agricultural management, according to a new study in the journal Earth System Dynamics.

The study, authored by researchers from the U.S., France, China, the UK and Australia, rests on two arguments.

Slow start

One is that although the world's nations vowed in Paris in 2015 to contain global warming by 2100 to "well below" 2°C relative to the average global temperatures for most of the planet's history since the last Ice Age, concerted international action has been slow to start. One nation—the U.S.—has already announced that it will withdraw from the Paris agreement.

The other argument is that, even if humans do in the decades to come rise to the challenge, it could be too late: by then greenhouse gas concentrations could have reached a level in the atmosphere that would in the long run condemn the world to sea level rises of several meters, and a succession of economic and humanitarian disasters.

"Continued high fossil fuel emissions would saddle young people with a massive, expensive cleanup problem and growing deleterious climate impacts, which should provide incentive and obligation for governments to alter energy policies without further delay," said professor James Hansen, of the Columbia University Earth Institute, who led the study.

Hansen, as director of NASA's Institute for Space Studies, made global headlines in 1988, during a severe drought and heatwave on the North American continent, when he told a Washington senate committee, "It's time to stop waffling so much and say the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here."

Legal testimony

With that one sentence, he made climate science an enduring item on the political agenda. But the latest study is also part of a legal argument. It is, in effect, testimony in the lawsuit Juliana v. U.S.

This case began under the last U.S. administration. However, the U.S. President Donald Trump, who has dismissed the evidence of climate change as a "hoax," has now been named in the case.

Hansen has argued that even the ambitions of the historic Paris agreement will not be enough to avert disaster and displacement for millions. The benchmark for geologically recent warming levels was set 115,000 years ago, during a period between two Ice Ages, known to geologists as the Eemian.

"We show that a target of limiting global warming to no more than +2°C relative to pre-industrial levels is not sufficient, as +2°C would be warmer than the Eemian period, when sea level reached plus 6-9 meters relative to today," Hansen said.

Lower CO2

At the heart of such arguments are calculations about imponderables that climatologists like to call the carbon budget and climate sensitivity. The first of these concerns the terrestrial and oceanic processes that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and then absorb them, and the second is a calculation about what a change in carbon dioxide levels really means for average global temperatures.

For most of human history, CO2 levels were around 280 parts per million. In the last two years they have reached 400 ppm, as a response to two centuries of fossil fuel combustion, and average global temperatures have risen by almost 1°C, with a record reading in 2016 of 1.3°C.

Hansen and his colleagues want to see these atmospheric CO2 levels lowered to 350 ppm, to bring global temperature rise down to no more than a rise of 1°C later this century.

If the world's nations can co-operate to do that, then most of the hard work to remove the carbon dioxide surplus from the air could be left to the world's great forests.

However, if carbon emissions go on growing at two percent a year (and during this century, they have grown faster), then those who are children now would have to commit to a costly technological answer based on the belief that carbon dioxide can be captured, compressed and stored deep underground.

Nobody knows how to do this on any significant scale. And if it could be done, it would be expensive: an estimated $535 trillion.

"It is apparent that governments are leaving this problem on the shoulders of young people. This will not be easy or inexpensive," said Hansen.

"We wanted to quantify the burden that is being left for young people, to support not only the legal case against the U.S. government, but also many other cases that can be brought against other governments."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Climate News Network.

Show Comments ()
Sponsored
Popular
Alex Nabaum

Hope Trumps Nope: A Blueprint for Resistance

By Naomi Klein

LET'S REWIND A BIT, to the week Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election. At that moment, I was reeling from witnessing not one catastrophe but two. And I don't think we can understand the true danger of the Trump disaster unless we grapple with both of them.

I was in Australia for work, but I was also very conscious that, because of the carbon involved in that kind of travel, I might not be able to return for a long time. So I decided to visit, for the first time in my life, the Great Barrier Reef, off the coast of Queensland, a World Heritage Site and Earth's largest natural structure made up of living creatures. It was simultaneously the most beautiful and the most frightening thing I had ever seen.

Keep reading... Show less
Renewable Energy
Austin's Pecan Street Project. Pecan Street Inc.

Rooftop Solar and EVs Save Water and Cut Pollution: Better Use of Data Will Optimize the Benefits

By Beia Spiller

Thanks to improvements in technology, it's easier than ever to be green.

Solar panels and electric vehicles (EVs) are two prime examples of technologies that can help people minimize their environmental footprint, without sacrificing comfort or having to radically change their daily behavior. But the question still remains: How much of an environmental benefit do these technologies actually produce? And, are there actions that owners of these technologies can take to minimize their pollution footprint even more?

Keep reading... Show less

MUST-SEE VIDEO: 5 Threats Today to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante After Trump's Decision

While we fight to defeat President Trump's attacks on Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, these are some of the real, on-the-ground threats we must keep at bay.

Following the lead of Native American tribes, The Wilderness Society and other groups have filed lawsuits against President Trump for violating the Antiquities Act when he essentially eliminated Bears Ears and greatly reduced Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments.

Keep reading... Show less
Fracking
Shutterstock

Study: Babies With Low Birth Weights More Likely Near Pennsylvania Fracking Sites

By Steve Horn

A new study published in the journal Science Advances has concluded that babies born within two miles of sites of fracking for natural gas in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale basin are more likely to have low birth weights.

Researchers from Princeton, the University of Chicago and UCLA analyzed a decade of Pennsylvania birth data from 2004 to 2013—reviewing 1.1 million birth certificates—and concluded that those babies born to mothers living in close proximity to fracking sites are more likely to weigh under 5.5 pounds at birth. Specifically, the study concluded that babies born within a kilometer (just over half a mile) of fracking sites are 25 percent more at risk of low birth weights, which comes with other health effects.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored

Victory! Monsanto Shill Michael Dourson Withdraws After Public Outcry

The Center for Food Safety heralded reports that Michael Dourson, President Trump's controversial nominee to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Wednesday withdrew his nomination after senators raised concerns over his past work and conflicts of interest.

"Dourson is a long-time pesticide industry shill, with a history of manipulating scientific research to benefit corporate special interests. He was a dangerous, irresponsible choice to oversee chemical safety at the EPA," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director a Center for Food Safety.

Keep reading... Show less
The manta ray, shown here, is one of at least 37 species of sharks and rays that have been documented in the archipelago. Pelagic Life

See the World's Newest Marine Park in the Pacific Ocean

By Matt Rand

For the health of the ocean and all who depend on it, this is big news: In November, Mexico became the latest nation to create a large, fully protected marine reserve.

The Revillagigedo Archipelago National Park, the country's largest marine protected area, is larger than the state of New York and protects 57,176 square miles (148,087 square kilometers) from fishing and other extractive activities.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Renewable Energy

Major Job Losses in Renewable Energy if Current Tax Plan Passes

By Steve Clemmer

In March 2017, I testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on how federal tax credits for renewable energy have been a key driver for the recent growth in the U.S. wind and solar industries, creating new jobs, income and tax revenues for local communities. They have also helped drive down the cost of wind and solar power by more than two-thirds since 2009, making renewable energy more affordable for consumers.

Keep reading... Show less
Offshore oil rig in the Santa Barbara Channel. Berardo62 / Flickr

White House to Release Offshore Drilling Plan

By Pete Stauffer

The Trump administration is expected to unveil the new Five Year Offshore Oil Drilling Plan as early as this week, after signing an executive order earlier this year to expand offshore oil drilling in U.S. waters. Expanded offshore oil drilling threatens recreation, tourism, fishing and other coastal industries, which provide more than 1.4 million jobs and $95 billion GDP along the Atlantic coast alone. The executive order directed the Interior Department to develop a new five-year oil and gas leasing program to consider new areas for offshore drilling. The order also blocked the creation of new national marine sanctuaries and orders a review of all existing sanctuaries and marine monuments designated or expanded in the past ten years.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored

mail-copy

The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!