The Guardian: Mål om 2 graders global oppvarming lite realistisk, gitt dagens politikk

'World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree' er overskriften til en artikkel i The Guardian som oppsummerer en spørreundersøkelse den britiske avisen utførte blant klimaeksperter som deltok på klimakonferansen i København sist måned. Samtlige 1,756 deltakere fra konferansen ble tilsendt spørsmål, og 261 svarte (hvorav 200 naturvitenskapelige klimaforskere) - deriblant meg. Her følger mine svar.

(1) Given the current growth in carbon emissions and range of mitigation options available, do you think that global average temperature rise CAN be limited to 2C?

If we took the right measures today, that would quite likely be possible. The chance of that happening, however, is remote. While there has been an emerging concensus the last couple of years that 'something has to be done', the discourse about what measures are the right ones has not progressed, but rather worsened - not least as a consequence of the green-washing of any conceiveable form of energy production (from nuclear energy to 'clean coal'), which has all been re-branded as 'climate friendly'. As for now it seems like all major energy sources will keep growing. With such a development, it is not remotely realistic to limit global temperature rise to 2C.

(2) Do you think the world IS currently taking the necessary action to limit the rise to 2C?

No. Some energy practices have to be excluded. Fossil fuel has to be phased out. It doesn't matter how much renewable energy we produce, as long as it supplements, rather than replaces, dirty energy. The world does not need 'more energy'.

(3) Given the scale of current action and the likely political response over the next few years do you think average temperature rise WILL be limited to 2C?

Probably not. A more fundamental societal change is likely to take more time to occur - though 'tipping points' exist in human societies as well, I don't see the constructive tendency in thought and attitudes that would be required.

(4) If yes, then what will bring about the required reduction in carbon emissions?

(CCS is not likely to be a solution. First of all, it continues our fossil era, meaning that IF it doesn't work out, we will lose valuable time, and in the meantime we will have increased the problem and grown even more dependent on fossil solutions. Even if it did work out, it could only be applied where there are big sources of emissions, meaning that a CCS strategy will favor big business and centralization of infrastructure, and all the same legitimize smaller sources of emissions, which taken together represent too high emissions already.)

(5) If no, then what do you think is the most realistic average temperature rise we can expect this century?

The real lesson from our climate awareness should be that nature is not something we can perfectly well predict and control. Is there a chance for a 2 degree increase? Yes. Is there a chance for a 5 degree increase? Maybe. With the lack of caution in today's climate policies (where many see climate change as a great business opportunity), we can only leave this question to future historians.

Is there a chance for a 1 degree increase? - Maybe - but that wouldn't necessarily mean that 'all environmental problems were solved' - it is conceiveable indeed that we can solve 'the climate problem', one way or another, and yet, a hundred years from now, have more substantial environmental problems than today. With current policies (and current thinking), we are likely to see increased environmental pressure, overall, regardless of what happens with the climate.

xxx

VG har en artikkel om The Guardian sitt oppslag. Der uteblir noen nyanser.

For å forhindre ekstreme klimaendringer må temperaturen ikke stige mer enn 2 grader. Nå mener klimaeksperter at det målet er helt umulig.

Det målet er ifølge mange av oss som svarte "helt umulig" gitt dagens politikk. Poenget var altså ikke at det ikke kan lykkes, dersom vi hadde satt inn de riktige tiltakene. Analysen er snarere at dét for tiden er lite tenkelig.

Et ytterligere poeng er at det er lite grunnlag for å si at 2 graders-målet er definisjonen på hva som vil føre til "ekstreme klimaendringer". På klimakonferansen i København ble nettopp usikkerheten understreket. Det finnes en rekke vippepunkter, som kan få verdenstemperaturen til å akselerere i den ene eller andre retningen - men for ingen av disse kan vi nøyaktig, på forhånd, forutsi hvilken (lokal!) temperatur som vil utløse dem. Det er altså ikke sånn at 1,9 graders temperaturøkning er "trygt", mens 2,1 grader er "utrygt". Det er ikke engang tilfelle at 1,5 grader nødvendigvis er trygt, mens 2,5 grader er utrygt. Om vi ender opp med "ekstreme klimaendringer" - hvordan nå dét skulle defineres - så vil vi sannsynligvis først oppdage det idet de er i ferd med å inntreffe, idet et vippepunkt alt er passert.

En hovedkonklusjon fra klimakonferansen i København var at 2-gradersmålet er en politisk konstruert målsetning.