A group of researchers laid out what they believe humanity will need to do in order to limit future global warming — immediately cease one’s modern lifestyle and give up fossil fuels.
That would mean “fossil fuel power plants, cars, aircraft, ships, and industrial infrastructure are replaced with zero carbon alternatives” over the next 40 years, according to the study.
And even all that would only give humanity a 64 percent chance of keeping future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, the study found. But not even the study’s authors seem to really believe these actions will be taken.
“We do not seek to assess the practical feasibility of this transition, but merely to report on the consequences in the context of keeping global mean temperature rise below 1.5 [degrees Celsius],” reads the study, published in the journal Nature Tuesday.
“Delaying mitigation until 2030 considerably reduces the likelihood that 1.5 [degrees Celsius] would be attainable even if the rate of fossil fuel retirement was accelerated,” reads the study.
However, the world gets roughly 80 percent of its energy from fossil fuels — coal, natural gas, and oil. Replacing all those is not only economically problematic, but it may not even be technically feasible.
It’s one thing to replace coal plants on an electric grid, but for other sectors, there are no readily available substitutes to fossil fuels. Airplanes and cargo ships, for example, don’t really have any alternatives.
“Maybe the solution here is flying less,” the study’s lead author Christopher Smith told The Guardian.
Interestingly enough, The Daily Caller News Foundation asked dozens of businesses, organizations and wealthy individuals that support the Paris climate accord if they’d support a ban on private jets. All but two companies ignored TheDCNF’s question.
Environmental economist Richard Tol wryly pointed out that simply lowering one’s standard of living or even letting billions of people die from a lack of fuel would curb global warming.
“Turn of your computer and fridge, stop trucks supplying supermarkets, end drinking water purification. Several billion dead would stop climate change alright,” Tol tweeted Wednesday.
Turn of your computer and fridge, stop trucks supplying supermarkets, end drinking water purification. Several billion dead would stop climate change alright. https://t.co/tsQ2gwM8TR
— Prof Dr Richard S.J. Tol MAE (@RichardTol) January 16, 2019
However, Smith’s study is only the latest to warn of dangerous global warming without getting rid of fossil fuels. The United Nations released a report in October that kicked off the scare of temperatures breaching 1.5 degrees Celsius — a goal of the Paris climate accord.
The U.N.’s report said societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” were needed to meet the Paris accord goals, which included between $51.2 trillion and $122 trillion in zero-carbon energy investments by 2050.
“Although the challenges laid out by the Paris Agreement are daunting, we indicate 1.5 °C remains possible and is attainable with ambitious and immediate emission reduction across all sectors,” reads Smith’s study.
Read more at Daily Caller
Those researchers did not do the research well enough what about Horse Manure as well as the illnesses that come from it or the CO2 in the comes from burning wood and with the Eco-Wackos and their oppsistion to chopping down trees yes indeed their so called research is flawed and full of holes so many hold if it was a ship it would sink in the harbor
From the article, “letting billions of people die from a lack of fuel would curb global warming.” Remember that many forms of cancer still do not have cures. However, cyanide kills all types of cancer cells. Eliminating all fossil fuels is the same type of thing, the cure is worse than the disease. However, in the case of anthropological climate change, the disease is imaginary.
For the moment ignore that carbon dioxide is not controlling the climate, and ignore even if it was the UN climate models on the average or running 3 times hotter than real world data. Let’s focus on the 1.5 C limit mentioned so often in this article. The original limit of 2 degrees was arrived by not wanting to exceed the natural variation of one place in England. Then the limit was lowered to 1.5 C purely by politics. To the best of my knowledge there has never been even a junk science study trying to determine what a reasonable limit would be.
They will never go below 1.5 degrees for one reason. It is the imagined threshold for “alarming” climate change. That empirical observations puts the actual doubling of Co2 at 0.6 degrees or less must be ignored. It’s simply not “alarming” enough to scare the masses into accepting Global Socialism.
The 1.5 degree number is based upon the average of 73 IPCC Models that have never made a single skilful prediction. Failed predictions can safely be ignored.
Just promise free tuition, free health care, free food, free everything. Once elected, confiscate the energy companies to pay for the free stuff.
Oops, that’s Venezuela.
Lets see these cracked urns start living in Grass Huts and do all their commuting on their own two feet even if it means walking many many miles to get from here to there i mean if tax payers dollars are going into this fake research then let them put their money where their mouths are