Until recently, it was on the verge of exceeding 1.5.ah20 years later it was a C, now it seems like it’s a 10. It could be sooner if politicians continue to approve new fossil fuel mines, fields and the clearing of old-growth forests. Particulate air pollution kills 9 million people a year.
I wonder when it will reach 1.5ahC of global warming?
People know that I’m interested in climate change, so they ask me: “Are scientists’ predictions about global warming accurate?”. My usual answer is “Yes, they are, except that the critical events they predicted are happening sooner than they predicted.”
This is illustrated in the online interactive version of the graph below.
The graph shows two measures of global warming.
- The gray and black zigzag lines mark each month from January 1971 to September 2023, showing the average amount of warming compared to the average temperature from 1850 to 1900.
- The red line shows the 30-year warming trend from 1993 to 2023 and the extension of the trend to predict when warming will reach 1.5.ah
As you can see, the forecast for September 2023 is that global warming is expected to reach 1.5.ahBut what’s even more concerning is that if you use the “slider” at the bottom of the online graph, you can see how the expected date changes as we reach 1.5 years.ahOver the past 23 years, fortunes have changed. I have summarized this in the table below.
In summary, the prediction is 1.5ahC dates remained in the early to mid-2040s until December 2016, but have since gradually moved to earlier dates. Since December 2020, projections have been between 2034 and 2035.
The progress of about 10 years from the mid-2040s to the mid-2030s is, of course, due to global warming progressing more rapidly than expected in recent years.
Fossil fuel production gap + hypocrisy = politician trust gap 510
Ahead of the Dubai COP meeting starting in the coming days, the United Nations Environment Program has updated its production gap report. This report puts numbers on the gap between how much coal, oil and gas we can burn to keep global warming below 1.5.ahC (honestly, this is not a guarantee; there is only a 1 in 2 chance that it will stay below 1.5) and the amount of coal, oil, and gas that governments around the world plan to produce between now and 2050. It’s the amount.This report also states that if the temperature is kept below 2 degreesahC, but we’ll focus on 1.5 here.
The diagram below shows the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) produced each year by fossil fuels. Not surprisingly, it paints an ugly picture.
Notice the red line at the top and the purple line at the bottom. The first thing to note is that GHGs produced by fossil fuels in 2050 will be about the same as today, although they were higher during this period. So much for any hope of phasing out fossil fuels, and forgetting about phasing them out altogether.
to stay below 1.5ahC requires the world to rapidly reduce its use of fossil fuels (and thus reduce emissions), with the required (purple line) and planned production (red line) The production gap between By 2050, we will be producing 3.5 times the amount of fossil fuels needed to make the environment and humanity reasonably safe. As stated in the report, “The continued production and use of coal, oil and gas is incompatible with a safe and livable future.”.
Looking at government production plans for each of the three fossil fuels separately, global coal production will fall by just a third by 2050, while oil and gas production will both fall by about a third. will increase.
This is where the credibility gap appears. Basically, politicians (mostly) are a bunch of hypocrites. They know there is a problem and they say they will do something about it (not enough, but it’s a start), but they do things to make the problem even worse.
There are approximately 200 countries in the world, but only 20 account for 82% of fossil fuel production and 73% of fossil fuel consumption. Most of the 20 countries have plans to increase production levels until at least 2030. The main countries increasing production are India (coal), Russia (coal, oil, gas), the United States (oil, gas), Saudi Arabia (oil), and Brazil (oil).
Australia, one of the 20 countries responsible, plans to increase coal and gas production slightly between 2021 and 2030. Of course, we have a goal of net zero emissions by 2050, but those are domestic emissions, and most of our emissions are exported, so we don’t need to worry about coal and gas at all. there is no. Our coal or gas may count towards someone else’s emissions, but Earth’s natural systems do not take into account who produces it and who burns it. Everyone everywhere suffers from problems, even if more than others.
The graph below shows the country’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a somewhat unusual way. Most commonly, a country’s GHG emissions are attributed to countries where fossil fuels are burned. The chart below shows where they were produced in 2021. I don’t think you need help with the analysis.
Missed opportunity to tackle air pollution
Traditional types of air pollution (particulate matter, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, and heavy metals) resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels are a major cause of serious illness and death around the world. Apart from reducing greenhouse gas emissions, phasing out fossil fuels also purifies the air we breathe and reduces cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, including lung cancer. Recent studies have shown that the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) portion of the pollution produced by fossil fuel combustion alone is responsible for nearly 9 million premature deaths each year worldwide. Masu. Fetuses and children under 5 years of age are especially at risk.
Signatories to the Paris Agreement are required to submit national targets and plans to keep global warming below 2.ahC – These plans are known as Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs. Unfortunately, most countries fail to identify in their NDCs that eliminating the use of fossil fuels will immediately result in cleaner air and better health outcomes.
The recently submitted NDCs of 170 countries were rated on a 15-point scale for their attention to air pollution, its harmful health effects, and actions to reduce it. Only 15 countries, mostly low- and middle-income countries, achieved a score of 7.5/15 or higher. High-income countries, the top 10 per capita greenhouse gas emitters (this group includes Australia), the top 10 total emitters, and the 10 countries with the highest air pollution rates all have an average of 2.5 ~ Scored 2.9/15. His NDC of countries that mentioned the health effects of air pollution was less than one-third.
Australia had a dismal performance of 2/15, including 0/3 in the health section. Although it received just 2 points for naming some air pollutants, it also highlighted the link between climate change, air pollution, and health, which could increase support for reducing the production, export, and use of fossil fuels. It was not possible to establish a relationship. One might think that the Albanon government does not want its people to make these connections.
Forest loss continues
By 2022, 4.1 million hectares of tropical forest will be lost. Is this equivalent to losing 11 soccer fields of forest per day? No; per hour? No; every minute! Approximately 90% was lost to logging, logging, and natural causes, and 10% to fire. Over the past 20 years, tropical forest loss has increased from about 3 million hectares per year to about 4 million hectares (half the size of Tasmania).
Brazil is by far the leader when it comes to loss of primary forest in the tropics, but the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Bolivia also contribute significantly to this shameful record.
Meanwhile, several countries have made significant efforts and reduced primary forest loss by around 50% between 2015-2017 and 2020-2022.
For comparison, since the early 2000s, the rate of tree loss in Russia has approximately doubled, mainly due to fires.
What makes the story even more complicated is that the bark alone doesn’t tell the whole story. In Europe, tree cover has increased by 1% over the past 20 years, but the area covered by tall forests (trees over 15 meters) has decreased by 3%, mainly due to logging, fire and pests. This is approximately a quarter of the area of Tasmania. . Tall trees are often replaced by new plantations, but ecosystems are severely damaged (soil health, biodiversity, loss of safe haven, blocked drainage, etc.) and young It takes decades or centuries for trees and soil to store large amounts of water. The amount of carbon again.
Australia is far from innocent when it comes to deforestation. In the map below, green indicates areas of tree cover that had at least 25% canopy density in 2010, and purple indicates areas that lost between 2010 and 2022. Tasmania, south-west Western Australia and coastal areas from Bundaberg to Adelaide were badly affected.
The tragedy for Australia is that state governments continue to allow the destruction of native forests and their ecosystems, even as the industry is rapidly declining (graph below).
Wood from virgin forests has been largely replaced by wood from plantations. The strangest part is that even with government subsidies, the industry regularly incurs financial losses, which is consistent with state-run Forestry Corporation of New South Wales (FCNSW)’s financial performance over the past 11 years. This is evident in the following graph which shows: The total NSW Government grant and operating losses for 2021-22 was approximately $30 million. The same is true for Victoria and Tasmania.
It’s hard to know which is worse: spending bad public money on bad things or needlessly destroying the environment for no purpose.
Climate dominoes with cartoon winners
Australian cartoonists boycotted the Walkley Awards ceremony in August because it was sponsored by Ampol. They then established their own Australian Cartoonists Association Stanley Awards, which are given to the best climate-related cartoons. The winner was Megan Herbert.
Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, who supported the award, said: “Megan Herbert’s cartoons illustrate the domino effect coal mining approvals will have on our lives, painting a clear and confrontational picture for Australians.”.