Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Regarding #2: How would we reverse the problem in 2008?

If carbon emissions were capped (good luck!), CO2 levels would continue to rise. If If carbon emissions were stopped (dreaming, here...), CO2 levels would take a long time to fall. Global temperatures would continue to rise because the oceans, which moderate climate, will take a decade or more to warm to equilibrium with the present atmosphere. Moreover, Arctic ice would continue to melt, light-colored tundra would continue to darken, etc.

A barely credible hope for 2008 would be slow the rate of increase of emissions, slowing the acceleration of the rise in CO2.

There are ways to stop or reverse warming, but fighting CO2 emissions, even with great success, won't do it in this generation.

Does anyone know of facts that invalidate the above?
If not, then they need to be in our reality base.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 02:29:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The IPCC suggested that total global CO2 emissions be capped within 7 years, in order to prevent severe and irreversable effects. To accomplish this, the West would have to offer LARGE reductions, to counterbalance the inevitable continuing rise of emissions in the third world.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats nor the various parties in Europe--except the Greens--propose such drastic action. That is, they are arguing amongst themselves about how the deck chairs should be arranged. I suppose that having the chairs piled up in a sort of pyramid or tower so that a few of us will last a few minutes longer would be better; at least, that's the position of the so-called Left in the West.

by asdf on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 09:33:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series