Just 5 years left to stop climate change

[auroraglacialis]

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns | Environment | The Guardian

The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.
...
"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."

If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, [because above that the greenland iceshield is endangered] then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world's existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that "carbon budget", according to the IEA's analysis, published on Wednesday. ...
by 2015 at least 90% of the available "carbon budget" will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all
...
Birol told the Guardian that constraining global warming to moderate levels would be "only a nice utopia" unless drastic action was taken.

5 measly years. "We" have waited way way too long to get on the right track. I feel very sad and depressed if I read this. And it comes from the IEA - not Greenpeace, the green party, the Sierra club or even just the social democratic parties - from the International Energy Agency - a conservative and economics oriented global organization:

The IEA's data is regarded as the gold standard in emissions and energy, and is widely regarded as one of the most conservative in outlook – making the warning all the more stark.

[Empty Glass]

Pessimism keeps setting in with me. I doubt this will get much attention from the U.S. Congress right now.

[Isard]

We may be in trouble if something happens depending on our hypothetical actions.

Confidence.

[Advent]

'If' is bad enough, IMO. There shouldn't be an 'if' to begin with.

[Fkeu'itan]

^Amen to that. "Should'a, would'a, could'a are the last words of a fool." I see that we're not completely destined for it yet, but somethig tells me with an attitude that we have 'just a little bit longer', the human race is going to become flippant and procrastinate on this issue, simply because it's easier not to do anything, and when it comes to that final year we'll be wishing we had done more before.

That said, climate change is a difficult issue. Geologically, we are still in the throws of an ice age. We know that this planet is not supposed to have ice caps, and occasions where they still existed, and the temperature was constant between ice ages is extremely rare. It would seem that the ice melting and the climate changing is simply a part of this planet's natural cycle and progression. However, I do not in any way claim that as a justification for what we do to our planet, and what we do sure as hell doesn't help with the nature of our planet. Just because it may be natural for the ice to melt, does not mean we should be driving round in colossal cars, burning all the oil or cutting down swathes of forest or dumping radioactive material and god knows how many tons of rubbish onto the lands and the seas.

[Clarke]

This is somewhat sensationalist. Look at what the reasoning is:

Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades,

But that's not correct; they can be shut down in a matter of days, if the need arises.

(Note to mention ignoring the possibility of reversing it.)

[Moco Loco]

The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

What does this mean exactly? I find this article to be vague. The only "lost forever" or "no return" I can think of hearing about, actually ever hearing about, is this .

[auroraglacialis]

The uncertainty, the ifs and whens there are not about if of when the problem will occur in case we do something stupid, it is about if we can summon up the effort to avert the problme which will occur with a certainty if nothing is done. And presently, nothing is done. And as the article says, the UK, Japan and others actually do not want to even talk about this before that deadline runs out. Thats seriously foolish.

The song linked - very fitting indeed.

[Icu]

People have been saying this for literally decades.

[Layzie]

The problem is people who don't believe it. "It's all fake. So I can do whatever I want".

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Layzie

The problem is people who don't believe it. "It's all fake. So I can do whatever I want".

No, the problem is a government structured in a way that promotes selfish thinking. Even if you had a sizeable chunk of [insert country] supporting you, if the government doesn't site with you, you can't do much.

[iron_jones]

Don't worry everyone, I fixed the problem! Turns out I left the light on in my basement.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Isard

We may be in trouble if something happens depending on our hypothetical actions.

Confidence.

Exactly.

All the nimbyism regarding solutions to the problem is what is endangering the world. Without that, there would not be any new coal/oil power stations built and even the ability to shut extant ones down before the end of their operational life (something this prediction does not talk about).

Originally Posted by Icu

People have been saying this for literally decades.

Exactly. Oil was going to run out in the 80s 90s 2000s 2010s 2020s, right? The world was going to end in 1988 1992 1994 2000 2012. When people believe something will happen, they will always keep setting the date further forwards when it doesn't turn up.

Originally Posted by Clarke

This is somewhat sensationalist. Look at what the reasoning is:

But that's not correct; they can be shut down in a matter of days, if the need arises.

(Note to mention ignoring the possibility of reversing it.)

It's called a political agenda.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Advent

'If' is bad enough, IMO. There shouldn't be an 'if' to begin with.

If we don't shift the Earths orbit we might collide with an asteroid.

[Advent]

Originally Posted by Isard

If we don't shift the Earths orbit we might collide with an asteroid.

I'm talking about something that we've actually caused, Isard.