2016 is set to be the hottest year on record. Rising sea levels have already forced out entire communities; melting permafrost may have unleashed an anthrax epidemic in Russia. In response, the United States and China have promised to curb their carbon emissions. However, is this a case of too little, too late? We are looking for the most well thought out answer to this question in up to 150 words: use the comment feature below the blog and please feel free to promote your research! The winner will receive an Amazon gift certificate worth £50 and a bag full of Mendeley items; competition closes October 19.
2016: The Hottest Year on Record?
According to NASA and the United Nations, 2016 promises to be the hottest year on record. This past June was, according to the UN, the “14th month for record heat” on land and sea. This change represents a 1.3 degrees Celsius increase on the temperatures of the pre-industrial era.
The consequences of climate change have already been severe. In August, the coastal village of Shishmaref, Alaska voted to relocate itself due to rising sea levels. Elevated temperatures have been linked to melting of the permafrost in Russia, which may have sparked an outbreak of anthrax. More extreme weather events and their follow on consequences have been widely predicted.
The World Responds
At the recent G20 summit, the two nations which emit the most carbon, China and the United States, agreed to make significant reductions. In August, the Netherlands discussed banning petrol and diesel fueled cars. President Obama also promised $40 million to island nations in order to help them cope with the effects of climate change.
Too Little, Too Late?
The nations of the world are finally grappling with the reality of climate change, but are these efforts too little, too late? Tell us!
Try Mendeley Data!
Climatologists already use Mendeley Data to store their findings; it’s handy, easy to use and offers a broad variety of licensing schema so that your data can be distributed, embargoed and utilised in any way you choose. It also interlocks with the wider Mendeley ecosystem for added convenience. Visit http://data.mendeley.com
About Mendeley Brainstorms
Our Brainstorms are challenges so we can engage with you, our users, on the hottest topics in the world of research. We look for the most in-depth and well thought through responses; the best response as judged by the Mendeley team will earn a prize.
Bogado, A. (2016) Alaska native village votes to relocate in the face of rising sea levels. Climate Desk. Available at: http://climatedesk.org/2016/08/alaska-native-village-votes-to-relocate-in-the-face-of-rising-sea-levels/ (Accessed: 6 September 2016).
Luhn, A. (2016) Did climate change cause Russia’s deadly anthrax outbreak? Climate Desk. Available at: http://climatedesk.org/2016/08/did-climate-change-cause-russias-deadly-anthrax-outbreak/ (Accessed: 6 September 2016).
Parkinson, J. (2016) Obama, Chinese president ratify landmark climate deal ‘to save our planet’. ABC News. Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/International/obama-chinese-president-xi-ratify-climate-change-agreement/story?id=41842303 (Accessed: 6 September 2016).
The Guardian. (2016). 2016 set to be world’s hottest year on record, says UN. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/21/2016-worlds-hottest-year-on-record-un-wmo [Accessed 6 Sep. 2016].
Sheppard, K. (2016) Obama to announce new climate change help for island nations. Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-climate-change_us_57c855dee4b0e60d31dda9bd (Accessed: 6 September 2016).
Staufenberg, J. (2016) Climate change: Netherlands on brink of banning sale of petrol-fuelled cars. The Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/netherlands-petrol-car-ban-law-bill-to-be-passed-reduce-climate-change-emissions-a7197136.html (Accessed: 6 September 2016).
50 thoughts on “Mendeley Brainstorm: Climate Change – Too Little, Too Late?”
i agree with you hottest year ever….
It’s likely to be true that scientists are fighting a loosing battle on climate change.
On one hand we believe destruction of Trees contribute to 78% lose of rains and any water body humidity changes.
But man has advanced highly in industrialization where factories/ industries emit nun- checked waste products cable of interring with ecology of animals and life.
Translocation of animals in zoos and marine to new areas in the name of saving life directly stabilize and interferes with their life before adaptation.
How can we stop all these emissions and direct that energy to another production without interfering with the atmosphere?.
Does heat generated from rocket missiles on jet fighters has any effect on the climate? disposing off ancillaries that does not suite the current market in fighting terrorism and war products left in battle grounds- to they affect the climate?Unfortunately this is done by industrialized nations, how do we change this?
Does burning of waste products-used oil, plastics, expired Agricultural chemicals products ,paints etc cause any effect in climate?
Can communities offer any help?. It most likely to start fighting the war on climate change with full engagement and participation of rural communities and unskilled factory/industry workers rather than spending millions of dollars in international hotel meetings and any realized intervention only remain as a blue print in every country,as the actual information doesn’t reach the common man.
with population growth and urbanization – the effluent created is never disposed in any scientific way if not its directed to small rivers which kill every plan along the river bank.. Polythene paper waste is actually a big threat such that wherever it’s deposited will affect the soil any plant close/ around it.Same applies to oil industries who focus on direct smoke to the air as long as human being(s) around the industries are not affected but what happens on emission in the atmosphere?
Urbanization seem to destroy moor plants as every centimeter of land is cemented ,pavement ed or tam act .
Can Africa be left with indigenous trees? can we burn export of timber from Africa as we are doing with Ivory?
Can we stop production of plastics until we get a safer way of its disposal or any country producing and export plastics should collect its waste back to origin for proper disposal ?
DVS/ILRI LAB. BUSIA-Kenya
yes is true but does it mean we do not know the cause it or we do not know the solution to the cause
Yes, it is too late. What is surprising is to think why, after all the CO2 restored to the atmosphere after millions of years being stored in the earth. But it may still not be too late to mitigate, prepare and build resilience. Reducing greenhouse gases is part of it.
Yes it is too late. Mostly every body in the world contribute degradation of nature. They or we are not to minimized energy that we have used. Act locally is should be done….. anything. We are in one planet.
I believe it’s never too nevertheless we should change our attitude and lifestyle. Its time we each take a step to fight the effects we are experiencing. It’s a fight now for a better tomorrow
A little video you all ought to watch.. to bring some sanity and reality to the debate.
co2 gas in the air can be retrieved or reused by plants, for research on plants that are able to rapidly capture co2 gas in the air
Maybe ever was too late to built houses, flats and apartments too close to the coasts, as made by the crazy development in a major part of the shorelines worldwide. The sea-land interfaz should be free!. The only real benefit of the effects of sea level raising will be the opportuunity to research on those effects!
Time comes to think about CFC gases by modify our luxuries .
Silly indeed. Enough to make me consider uninstalling Mendeley
Sure… because the best thing to do, when you desagree with an opinion, is to criticize and leave. This way you may may keep your sense of superiority and continue thinking you are the owner of the reason, while the other that think differently will also think they are right to have different opinions than such an intolerant person.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and show how stupid we are.
Conditions of activity of the Sun. In this case it is necessary to use effect of photosynthesis in atmospheric layers. Energy of structure of Carbon. CO and CO2 – the reduced chain of hydrocarbons in which are formed structures of two stable isotopes. Process of photosynthesis expands these structures in a consecutive chain of unstable hydrocarbons.
It is never too late to deal with the climate change issues but what we all need to do is to change the way we treat our environment. With China and the America promising to curb emissions, that will contribute greatly to the reduction of air pollution and global warming which is the main reason for these climatic changes. However we should all work together in reducing these carbon emissions as it is our duty to protect our environment. Flooding and sea level rise are all threats to natural resources, and human communities especially in coastal areas. In effort to adapt to these changing conditions, planners and policymakers should consider nature’s strategies when developing resiliency plans to protect communities from increasing environmental risks and flooding due to rising sea levels. Promote afforestation, it is neither too late nor too little.
No, it is not too late. Because of intensive agriculture, agricultural soils lost more than half their content in Carbon. If each coming year we are able to restitute 4‰ of the soil Carbon to the soil (which is easy to realise using compost techniques), we will store into the soil all the Carbon annually sent in the air by human activities. Professor Budiman M. of the Sydney University calculated it. The process will know a plateau, but before raising it, we would have some time for changing our use of the petroleum (can we progressively stop to burn it up?), preferring sun radiation energy and recycling of materials to geologically inherited limited resources. To set Carbon into the soil is not only easy to do, but necessary for restoring soil biodiversity, producing healthy food (organic matter filters even heavy metals…), reducing soil erosion, improving soft water reserves and reducing human wastes. A planetary plan, few words from each reasonable local politic Institution: “It is mandatory to compost organic wastes and to distribute them on agricultural soil, following the instructions given by each National Department of Agriculture: https://blog.FAO.com/….”. It could run. Let’s try it.
The article can be downloaded here: https://sustainability.water.ca.gov/documents/18/3407623/Soil+carbon+sequestration+to+mitigate+climate+change.pdf
I would like to know to start for study of restored soil biodiversity.
The forecasts that originally formed the foundation for the Kyoto meeting were gross overestimates of the extent and impact of global warming. In an attempt to convince the people of the United States of the need for a dramatic reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels, the Clinton administration and the United Nations, needing the United States as a worldwide vanguard, engaged in a relentless campaign of exaggeration of the threat from global warming. However, global temperatures failed to warm as predicted. Still, the IPCC blindly holds out carbon dioxide as the villain in its global warming drama.
The IPCC acknowledges no problems with global databases, holding that urbanization has little or no effect on climate change, and ignoring dozens of peer review papers that have shown that urban contamination is significant, including the fact that once rural airports now have cities growing up around them. Similarly, they ignore the fact that global weather stations have decreased by two thirds since 1990 and that the majority of the remaining ones probably do not meet the standards of their own World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Finally, they ignore the peer-review papers that suggest that these problems could account for half of the warming shown in the world databases.32
The biggest point the IPCC ignores is probably the real climate driver: The Sun. Since this paper primarily reviews the IPCC’s scapegoating of carbon dioxide, I will only give passing notice to this huge scientific matter. They have ignored the Milankovitch Cycles and the fact that the solar activity on an 80-year time scale (Gleissberg cycle) matches the average United States (where the best WMO site standards exist) station annual mean temperatures.
The IPCC’s combined model projections imply that anthropogenic warming by 2100 will be almost unimportant with a 66% chance of error. That is hardly a sound foundation for a meaningful consensus when the scientific uncertainty is so huge. In addition, the IPCC report states that the anthropogenic effect was difficult to quantify because it is small and masked by natural variability. Until we know how much of the climate change is due to natural causes, there is not much hope of separating the human activity from it.
Virtually all of the research referenced climate system models in one way or another, and it has become abundantly clear to me why. The IPCC has made its predictions based upon data derived from scenarios input to Global Climate Models (GCM) in an attempt to predict global warming. In that vein, my research suggests that the IPCC has “tuned” their GCMs to make carbon dioxide seem to be the prime cause of global warming.
The IPCC has generally held that the science of global warming is settled, but this research appears to refute that principle. Indeed, the Bast and Taylor survey stands squarely on the view that the science is anything but settled. Scientists all over the world disagree, and that is a good thing because this research also shows that there is more of what is unknown than what is known.
What the research demonstrates is that global temperatures are rising as part of an 800,000-year oscillation pattern with the current rise beginning around 25,000 years ago. There is no need to cite carbon dioxide as the source of the current temperature rise, because it has been proven that the temperature fluctuation precedes the rise and fall of carbon dioxide over a 400,000-year period. The carbon dioxide contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so it cannot be expected to be statistically significant. The GCMs are tuned to display the data as their programmers desire the outcome to be shown. And, finally, water, as a gas, is the major radiation absorbing and emitting gas in the atmosphere; not carbon dioxide.
There is a more fundamental problem intrinsic to the IPCC method. If natural changes with unknown causes are occurring, and we know they are, they cannot be included among the known forcing functions in the GCMs. This is an even more serious problem than the tuning discussed above. In the scientific approach, facts are determined by scientific methods where quantitative predictive results from a theory are disproved or confirmed through experimentation. Since our earth enjoys such a complex, chaotic climate system there is still a tremendous amount of studying to complete and many hypotheses yet to test.
The question itself presents a fallacy. The Paris Agreement is not the solution to climate change. If it was, it would be too little, too late (it should have come 20 years ago and is not sufficient). The Paris agreement arises from a mature science and policy debate which assumes that changes in the energy market and technology deployment will help keep the Carbon in the ground, which is the most important objective. These things need to be made to happen.
We know climate has changed, we know it will change more. We know failure to curb GHG emissions would be catastrophic. Had we acted decisively 20 years ago, climate change would be quite manageable. The science tells us that our future lies somewhere between bad and very bad, and that our opportunity to take aim on a particular future will slip away over the next few years.
“We know failure to curb GHG emissions would be catastrophic.”
This is something we most certainly DO NOT know.
The scientific consensus on the significance of anthropogenic climate change was, I presume, a premise to this question. It is appropriate for this not to become a forum for science denial, in my opinion. But I’m not a moderator.
I’d be happy to provide reading material to you, but I prefer to carry out extended conversations with non pseudonymous individuals.
It’s never too late. It’s time to change our attitudes towards energy use. The fossil fuels that contribute greatly to global warming by emissions of greenhouse gases should be replaced with renewable energy sources like solar energy, wind energy and biofuels that have little emissions.
I believe that, given the information we have and the changes scientists have observed, things may get worse for a while before they get better. The relocation of coastal communities is pretty much a given considering that rising sea levels are an easily understood consequence of climate change. New ecological changes involving shifts in organism populations will also require us to prepare and adapt for disease outbreaks or disruptions in agricultural production as they happen.
Vigilance and adaptation will be key in dealing with the consequences of climate change. We need to reexamine the way we produce our energy and our food, and come up with superior systems that are less burdensome on the environment. This includes reclaiming lost land via bioremediation so that we can grow plants that can act as effective carbon sinks, and coming up with agricultural production methods that require less land area.
Bonaventure Nwokeoma says:
The global efforts on climate change mitigation could be too little, but certainly not too late. It is good news that the Worlds largest Co2 emitters had agreed to reduce their carbon emissions. But these are words, the most vital component which is concrete actions to match these words must follow. the actions not the words are what will help the World to overcome the climate change challenge. Unfortunately Nations commitment to these agreements depends most on the convictions of the leaders. Lets hope that changes in leadership will not reverse the hands of the clock.
The other vital plank is what has to be done to reverse the harm already done by climate change especially in the developing World. Nations must help each other to overcome these challenges. Since the atmosphere does not discriminate among Nations, Nations must not discriminate in the fight against climate change. Nations must come together to tackle climate change challenges.
No matter what, Mendeley is highly interesting.
Scientists can tell you that climate change has been a constant on our planet, but the impacts of humanity are unprecedented. Pollution, habitat destruction and fragmentation, and carbon emissions are changing the Earth’s very fabric. With the extinctions of vulnerable plants and animals, signals to human beings are loud and clear: this moment in history marks the line. Our descendants could tell each other that as a result of our fragmentation and inaction human societies created a crowded, hot planet depauperate in natural resources and values. Or they can share stories of amazement and gratitude that our generation perceived the problems, scoped solutions, and took strong and decisive collective action. As a student of ancient societies I am rooting for the latter story! Thank you to Mendeley for engaging the intellectual community on this important subject.
the most common cause of climate change are deforestation and the green house gases released into the atmosphere by industries,vehicles and other activities that are using petroleum products,while there is no mean to reduce them. but if some measures of using renewable sources of energy are taken this problem would be minimised.
i wish you provide us adequate informations as developing country so that we can work to produce bio fuel energy based on algae. as this will reduce deforestation and use of petroleum derivatives.
Climate changes, it always has. What is missing from the political debate is “How much warming is due to CO2?” Only then can you have a sensible discussion about what to do about it. Clouds, water vapour and natural variability are huge sources of uncertainty.
We had 20m of sea-level rise completely naturally in the past 10,000 years. In spite of numerous media examples of rising sea-levels swamping islands, I’m yet to see any science supporting those. Your Alaska Shishmaref link is no exception. On reading the link I find that the erosion that is causing them problems is a local phenomenon largely caused by urban warming of the permafrost, destablising it, coupled with less sea-ice in the seas nearby causing more erosion action by storms. So caused by human activity? Partly. Caused by human emitted CO2? Almost certainly not. Caused by rising sea-levels caused by human emitted CO2? Most assuredly not.
If you do actually care about science, you need to sharpen your act, this sort of thing diverts important attention from real issues and Climate change is a non-issue because it is an unsolvable scientific, moral and political problem. We know the catastrophists were wrong, it’s time to admit that and move on to build resilient communities that can respond to whatever natural and man-made disasters befall us: war, tsunamis, volcanos, earthquakes, meteorites, famine, disease, drought and flood have always been the important drivers of human society and have nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. The political elite have been mislead by climate modelling soothsayers and it is time to call out the charlatans and redirect resources to real problems.
I hope someday, someone can change the capitalist world system, to stop the slaughter of the nature and use renewable energies that should already be in use for over 50 years. For now I show my ecological education to the rest around me. The best I can do. ACTION IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
I am molecular plant pathologist at Selcuk Univ. in Turkey. I want to take attention about plant pathogenic bacteria. Some bacterial pathogens have increased with changing climate and they will cause economic losses and very destructive on all plants, vegetables, fruit trees, field crops, ornamentals etc.
Assoc. Prof. Kubilay Kurtulus BASTAS
Revitalizing humanity ideologies will be the alternative solution in tackling Climate Change. Such saying as “ All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” is the foundation believes irrespective of race , religion and gender by revisiting such ideology our planet will have a good chance to be sustainable. Many forums and discussions with regard to protecting our planet are based on scientific or political platform and not enough be done to emphasize on how to be a reasonable human being. Whatever been done are primary by us , the human race , and best way forward to correct the wrong will be to reboot the mindset of human race and instill the fundamental ideologies that made us human such as what is deem sufficient , what not to do etc.. We all know these fundamentals through time most of us might either take it for granted or forgotten its true meaning.
Too Little, Too Late?
According to the recent G20 summit, the two nations which emit the most carbon are China and the United States; both counties have agreed to make significant reductions on this issue. The nation of the world grappling the reality of climate change to reduce the emission of most carbon is neither little or too late. Kacey Deamer, (Livescience, July 20th, 2016) stated that NASA report shows that temperature averages in excess this year of previous year due to the effects of greenhouse gases. This is contributed by the EL Nino weather event impact which will dissipate in 2017 leaving the temperature slightly lower than this year. This effect is as a result of prvious emission of gases and the greening of the Arctic has resulted to the effect of this warming climates, The Arctic was once a frozen tundra landscape but the increasing temperature and the Arctic becoming warmer will have global implications
The image at the top is funny – given that increased CO2 levels have demonstrably made the world significantly greener and have significantly increased crop yields globally.
the United States and China have promised to curb their carbon emissions…..! I would like to say that it is ”Not enough help to save the situation”.
The world leading countries like US and China and some other countries have to become a symbol of non emitters on war footings. I will further endorse Bonaventure Nwokeoma suggestion, ”Since the atmosphere does not discriminate among Nations, Nations must not discriminate in the fight against climate change”. The role of US and China is very important in this regard.Whole the world have to sit together and formulate a policy of “Simplicity & Awareness”. We, people of all the world have to change ourselves by changing our perception, habits and life style to face this challenge.
we have to live a simple life, we have to control our food and waste, and should eat more vegetables than meat. we have to use those products which are, or their production is less harmful to environment. Our choises can make the world clean and calm. And this can come through education, awareness and consciousness. “Simplicity” in our lives can contribute much more than anything to save our environment. Live a simple life and think about our future generations.
I did not know that there was in France an initiative named 4p1000. Before Prof. Budiman, someone else made the same calculus and organised even a political/sociological movement: http://4p1000.org/.
I apologise and wish the best to the initiative.
See more about the 4 per thousand project to mitigate global warming by adding a little more carbon to the soil: http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/24/11/2015/4-1000-soil-carbon-mitigate-climate-change
Dear all, here another site in English where you can find further information on the challenge 4per 1000: http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/24/11/2015/4-1000-soil-carbon-mitigate-climate-change .
Andrea Koch, Alex McBratney and Budiman Minasny investigate the viability of a call by the French Government in the lead up to COP21 to increase carbon in the global soil stock by 4 percent per annum, based on Australia’s world leading regulatory approach to carbon farming.
All the best for this movement !
It is never too late because there is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now. The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response.
Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.
It is estimated that the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year. We understand that the cost of reducing GHG emissions is very high but consequences associated with the impacts or damage if left untouched could rise to about 20% or more of global GDP every year
Our actions now and over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes.
Climate change is a global problem, the response to it must be international. It must be based on a shared vision of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade, and it must build on mutually reinforcing approaches at national, regional and international level. An example of such response is what the Chinese government has undertaken under the project south south cooperation. This project seeks to transfer technology and supporting renewable and energy efficient technologies to actually reduce emissions in developing countries since the issues with Climate change must be faced globally.
Emissions can be cut through increased energy efficiency, actions to reduce deforestation changes in demand, and adoption of clean power, heat and transport technologies. Clean power can be obtained from renewable energy and other low carbon energy sources. With strong, deliberate policy choices, it is possible to reduce emissions in both developed and developing economies on the scale necessary for stabilization in the required range while continuing to grow.
Russia is quite a vast country, about a third of it is in the Arctic and the far North, where these processes are particularly noticeable. Here is often used for the transport of goods natural (river and sea) transport communications, and also temporary roads — winter road. Socio-economic development and vital activity of these areas is determined by the status and efficiency of transport.
The observed warming in the Arctic is expressed in the manifestation of the negative processes influencing the organisation of transport activities.
Based on the forecast scenarios of climate change, identifying risks and threats need to develop a set of adaptive and protective measures for sustainable transport in the Arctic zone
The United States and China have promised to curb their carbon emissions have to be appreciated. It is not easy as the major economy of the world that depend much on fossil energy consumption tried hard to force their selves to committed due to climate change issue. Moreover, the US and China policy toward carbon emission reduction will be strengthen after they face the real environmental problem like Russia. We support for the good willing and it hope, the policy will help the world to survive from climate change. For example in Indonesia, the local government gain support from the people in order to build healthy and welcome city by creating sustainable urban environment due to prevent from the disaster such as flood, waste, and slum area. The people consider that the climate change is not only about the global trend and discourse but we realize the impact that really near to our life. Nowdays, we cannot predict the weather. The peasant is difficult to decide when the good season to grow and when they can harvest. It is also happen to the fisherman and the municipal society. In Kota Malang and Kota Surabaya, the local government revitalize the green open space (RTH) in dealing with rejuvenate and decorate the city parks and garden. This policy is able to make green the city as carbon eradication and also invite the people to come and visit as the city’s recreation place. Maybe it is the one of the policy that able to make people love to walk and left their car at home to gather in the centre of city everyday. I do believe that everybody feels the changing of the nature involve the government of US and China then they will take the chance to create the sustainable environment. By good willing and good cooperation, the world will be better.
China and USA, ratifying and actually adhering to the post Kyoto protocol or negotiations in a bide to cub green house gas emission are miles apart,However we shouldn’t be too soar to the two powerful emitters of carbon and other green house gases, Its better to shake hands and agree they now care about the environment and future than to stubbornly refuse to talk about pollution. This should be accompanied with enforcement legislative laws within there respective countries in order to achieve the set emission reduction targets.
This has been an issue for many years and has been ‘talked and talked and talked’ about with some action but in my opinion, not enough. People in power have the ability to make more significant changes, but still the size of their wallets is more appealing. Over such a long period of time the human species has done so much irreversable damage and now with life at risk on so many levels all of sudden there is this urgency that really should have been the case a long time ago when we had a greater chance. Imagine if changes had been made 50 years ago. Hind-sight is a wonderful thing. We all need to take some responsibility and think about how we can protect what we have left for the future. It is so sad to think the planet is not really a priority and we live here! The world needs healing not a few band aides.
Its never too late,but humankind has learned from experience for many generations . It will never be too late, when the biggest emitters of Green House Gases are hit by the worst effects of climate change then the mitigation measures shall arise in plenty .
And the soil sink is the right answer, be setting organic matter into agricultural soils during the coming 50 years. And trying to change the present life style, less consumerism, more attention to habitats biodiversity and, little by little, sun instead of oil as source of energy for human activities. It could work.
The answer is slightly more complex than a simple yes or no. On one hand, the Paris Agreement is celebrated as the documentation of the human race’s first collective effort to combat the biggest threat in our (relatively young) species’ narrative – climate change. On the other hand, this hot-air balloon is constantly shot down as nothing but a mere ‘green-washing’ of white paper. The bottom-line is that the assessed carbon budget is not sufficient to limit warming to 2°C nor does it help the SIDS – who have conveniently been handed a raw deal. While we have put our faith in negative emissions by means of CCS – scalable technology that we are yet to invent, there have been paradigm shifts to more sustainable practices. Personally, I look optimistically at this deal to restrict warming to below 4°C. To sum up, it all depends on our actions in the next 10 years.
Thank you for all the interesting comments; the team will assess them and determine a winner in the next several days.
Sorry for the late response but just received the email. Thank you for your consideration.
Many of you have really good ideas and thoughts about climate change and how to fix it. I believe that it is never too late to turn something around or fix things and until all is gone there is hope!
If we, as a world united concentrated on one thing to fix it would make a big impact. For instance, instead of trying to fix everything at once let’s just concentrate on trees. Plant more trees and stop cutting them down. That would mean less paper being sold, people being more conscious of the paper waste and in turn reduce the amount of trash everyone is making. Starting small and simple sometimes gets you the biggest bang. Once this is controlled you can then move on to the next item. It is how I tackle large tasks. One thing at a time and starting with the smaller of the tasks to see some headway and feel like I am making some progress. I know that it is not that simple, but it would be a start and that is what we need to do; START!!!
Totally, agree with you action is what we need to show in all aspects. We have to start demonstrating with example our ecological education at every place We go, and not waste any more time insted.
Comments are closed.