According to a WMO report, during the next 5 years the threshold of 1.5ºC will be broken. Then intercontinental structural droughts may occur and as a consequence between 2 and 4 billion people die of hunger.
GSL warns that the impact of Climate Change will be faster and more intense than expected. He cites that “Preventing the temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius is not enough,” the conclusion of Dr. James Hansen, a climate change expert and former NASA scientist. As he explains in his study published in the scientific journal European Geoscience Union, one more degree of global warming could be catastrophic for humanity, since in just 50 years the sea level will rise by 3 to 8 meters. Given this, GSI has presented a solution proposal to be discussed during the COP 21 Paris Summit.
This report (by Dr. Hansen), once collated and confirmed by the scientific community, modifies the situation regarding climate change and places us in a situation of Planetary Climate Emergency given that we are close to reaching 1º more than the global average temperature above current levels. Hence the need to take urgent and intensive measures such as the Solidarity Fund of 2% of annual world GDP and the Planetary Eco Government.
We are facing a picture of global flooding, where by 2030 the average temperature will be 1º higher and the first 30 centimeters of ocean elevation will be reached. To avoid this, it is necessary to move to net zero emissions by 2030, replacing the entire energy matrix. For this, it is necessary to have intensive capital funds and political and economic coordination, in ecological matters, on all countries at a global level.
James Hansen suggests a potential for rapid climate change this century, including several meters of sea level rise, if climate change is not reduced.
Studying how the Earth’s climate responded to natural changes in the past, Hansen investigated one of the fundamental questions raised by human-caused climate change: What is the dangerous level of climate change? Some international leaders have suggested a goal of limiting to two degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times to avoid catastrophic change.
But Hansen told a news conference at a meeting at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco that a warming of two degrees could lead to drastic changes, such as significant loss of the ice sheet in Greenland and Antarctica.
Based on Hansen’s temperature analysis work at GISS, Earth’s mean global surface temperature has risen 1°C since 1880 and is now warming at a rate of more than 0.1°C every decade. This warming is largely driven by increases in greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, emitted from the burning of fossil fuels in power plants, in cars, and in industry.
At the current rate of burning fossil fuels, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have doubled from pre-industrial levels by mid-century. Doubling the level of carbon dioxide would eventually cause several degrees of warming, according to Hansen.
In the recent research, Hansen and co-author Makiko Sato, also from GISS, compared today’s climate, the Holocene, to a similar period of interglacial epochs – periods when polar ice caps existed but the world was not dominated by glaciers.
Studying corals drilled from ice sheets and sediments in the deep ocean, Hansen found that mean global temperatures during the Eemian, which began 130,000 years ago and lasted about 15,000 years, were one degree cooler than today.
If temperatures were to rise 2ºC above pre-industrial times, the global temperature
mean could far exceed that of the Eemian, when sea levels were 4 to 8 meters higher than today, Hansen said.
“The paleoclimate record reveals a more sensitive climate than we thought, even from a few years ago. Limiting human-caused warming to two degrees is not enough,” says Hansen: “It would be a recipe for disaster.”
Hansen focused much of the work on how the polar regions and in particular the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets react to a warm world.
Two degrees Celsius of warming would make planet Earth much warmer than during the Eemian, bringing it closer to Pliocene conditions, when sea levels were about 25 meters higher than today, Hansen said. Using Earth’s climate history we learn more about the level of sensitivity that governs the planet’s response to warming today.
Hansen said that the paleoclim record
Attic suggests that every degree Celsius rise in global temperature could ultimately lead to 20 meters of sea level rise. However, sea level rises due to ice sheet loss would be expected to occur for centuries, and large uncertainties remain in the prediction of how ice loss will originate.
Hansen notes that the disintegration of the ice sheet will not be a linear process. This non-linear deterioration has already been seen in vulnerable places such as the Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica, where the rate of ice loss has continued to accelerate over the past decade.
Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite is already consistent with the rate of sea ice mass loss in Greenland and West Antarctica doubling every ten years. The GRACE registry is too short to confirm this with great certainty, however the trend in the past few years does not rule it out, according to Hansen. This continued rate of ice loss could cause several meters of sea level rise by 2100.
Sedimentary cores from the ocean and ice from the polar regions indicate that temperatures at the poles during previous epochs – when sea level was a few tens of meters higher – are not too far from the temperatures Earth could reach this century. if everything continues on the current trajectory.
“We don’t have a substantial cushion between today’s weather and dangerous warming,” Hansen comments, “Earth is about to experience a strong amplified feedback in response to moderate additional global warming.”
Detailed considerations of a new warming target and how to get there are beyond the scope of this investigation, Hansen said. But this research is
consistent with Hansen’s earlier findings that carbon dioxide would need to drop from 420 ppm in the atmosphere today to 350 ppm to stabilize the climate in the long term. As leaders continue to discuss an emissions reduction framework, global carbon dioxide emissions have been flat or rising in recent years.
Hansen and others point out that while paleoclimate evidence paints a clear picture of what Earth’s former climate was like, but using it precisely to predict how climate might change on much shorter time scales in response to human induction shows signs. response, even in cases of “slow feedback” such as changes in ice sheets.
The human-caused release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere also presents climate scientists with something they have never seen in 65 million years of records of carbon dioxide levels. A drastic rate of increase that makes it difficult to predict how quickly the Earth will respond. In periods when carbon dioxide has increased due to natural causes, the rate of increase averages 0.0001 parts per million per year – in other words, 100 parts per million every million years. The burning of fossil fuels is now causing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase by two parts per million a year.
A small increase in warming causes a small melting of the polar ice, but this causes changes in ocean currents that tend to melt more ice: the more ice melts, the faster the rest that remains begins to melt due to heat trapped in the water that there is below
Fresh water is less dense than salt water and the former, as a result of the melting of the ice sheet, will accumulate around Greenland and Antarctica, according to this study. This layer will act like a blanket around Antarctica, floating on top of the rest of the salty water and preventing accumulated heat from radiating into the atmosphere. The result will be a rapid melting of the ice.
On top of that, this layer of water would disrupt ocean currents that carry heat from the tropics to the poles, so the tropics would warm even faster, while at high latitudes the water surface would cool. This temperature difference would generate superstorms of a size and fury never seen by modern humans. However, there is evidence, found in the Bahamas, that these storms did occur 120,000 years ago. Debris left by waves from these storms was deposited 40 meters above current sea level, including rocks weighing thousands of tons.
According to the study authors, an increase of 2 degrees will lead to a dangerous situation in which coastal areas and countries formed by islands will face
disastrous consequences due to the rise in at least 5 meters of sea level and the scourge of super storms. This means, for example, the disappearance of the map of
Entire countries made up of small islands in the Pacific.
“Humans have outpaced the slow natural changes that occur on geologic time scales,” Hansen concludes.
Undoubtedly reducing carbon emissions is a good thing for the health of the planetary environment, but reaching net zero emissions and proceeding to decontaminate is much better.
The problem today with Climate Change summits is that politicians are mentalized with the equation of not exceeding 2º Celsius more than the global average temperature. This threshold was popularized by the scientist James Hansen, the same one who now warns us that this is no longer enough and that it is enough for the temperature to rise 1º more for the oceans to rise between 3 to 8 meters in less than 50 years, as they did in the Eeminian period, about 100 thousand years ago.
Reacting and applying the new information is equivalent to an investment of hundreds of billions of dollars per year. If this is not done all the coastal cities will irreversibly flood. And the economic damage will amount to an impact of 100 billion dollars in losses and a cost effect of 10 billion dollars per year due to Global Warming by 2050 (10% of world GDP).
From GSL, Global Solidarity, we propose the Solidarity Green Fund of 2% of the annual world GDP to solve the problem of global warming together with hunger and extreme poverty. It is an effort that must be carried out among all countries and thus ensure a peaceful future for all.
Taking a case: Argentina, Dr. Hansen’s prediction places us in front of a scenario for 2030 with 1º more global average temperature and half a meter of ocean elevation. Under that condition the properties on the coast will be worth nothing. By 2050, the waters will rise 8 meters and around 10 million Argentines will have to be evacuated. At the same time, the climate for the region will have become more hostile and the Pampean region will tend to become semi-desert, for which billions of dollars in crops will be lost. Adding this to property losses in flooded cities along the entire coastline, the impact
The minimum will then be around 500 billion dollars. Meanwhile, in the world, no less than 600 million people will be affected.
WHY 2% OF WORLD GDP?
Our actions in the decades immediately ahead may risk disruption to economic and social activity for the remainder of this century and the next, on a scale similar to that of great wars and the Great Depression. This is the conclusion of the report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern commissioned by the UK government and published on October 30, 2006.
His main conclusions state that an investment equivalent to 1% of world GDP is needed to mitigate the effects of climate change and that if this investment is not made, the world would be exposed to a recession that could reach 20% of global GDP. The report also suggests the imposition of ecotaxes to minimize socioeconomic imbalances.
The study argues that climate change, as the most important and pervasive market failure, is a unique challenge to the economy that requires immediate action. The reduction of emissions would generate benefits that far exceed the costs and would avoid the most severe consequences of climate change. The risks of serious and irreversible repercussions increase with the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are increasing as a consequence of human activities and could double the pre-industrial level by 2035, which would mean an increase in global temperature from 2 to 3 °C, with a 50% risk of exceeding 5 °C (difference between the last ice age and the current temperature) in the following decades.
This warming would represent average annual losses of 5% to 10% of GDP (wider estimates reach 20%). Paradoxically, the poorest populations and countries will be affected earlier and more intensely by climate change, many developing regions are already warmer and experience greater rainfall variability. Likewise, they are highly dependent on agriculture and have limited resources for adaptation.
What to do to stop climate change?
To avoid the most serious risks of climate change, as explained in the report, stabilization at 450-500 ppm CO2 is required, which implies reducing current emissions by a minimum of 25% up to even 90%. According to the central calculations of the study, the adoption of immediate measures for stabilization at 500-550ppm of
CO2 would amount to approximately 2% of global GDP annually, which is reduced if higher levels of efficiency and innovation are considered and collateral benefits are taken into account, such as the reduction of i
health impacts from air pollution.
The stabilization costs are feasible and small in relation to the risks and economic losses of inaction. Climate change strategies present a number of benefits and new growth opportunities in a range of industries and services (eg a minimum of US$500 billion per year of low carbon energy products by 2050). This could contribute to reducing inefficiencies at the level of companies and the economy, such as energy efficiency or the elimination of energy subsidies. It also contributes to forest conservation, energy security, etc.
It is emphasized that the benefits of a low-carbon economy would allow countries to decouple economic growth from their emissions path. The emission reduction policy should be based on three elements: an appropriate price for carbon to incorporate its social cost, a technological policy to support innovation and the development of efficient and low-carbon technologies that would reduce its costs, and the elimination of barriers that prevent action.
It is concluded that an effective response to climate change will depend on the conditions that make major changes and collective international action possible in the long term; For example, the energy sector, worldwide, must decarbonize at least 90% by 2050. An international framework agreement should incorporate emissions trading, measures to reduce deforestation, technological cooperation, and financial support from industrialized countries to most affected. In addition, to include both developing and developed countries with between 60% and 90% of the reduction of emissions by 2050.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) proposed allocating 2% of the global annual GDP applied: 0.5% to natural capital sectors (forests, agriculture, fresh water and fisheries); 1% to improve energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy (fundamentally applied to construction, industry and transport), and the remaining percentage to waste and public transport.
With this budget it will be possible to plant 30 billion new trees per year and then proceed to bury the trunks, trapping CO2 and returning this greenhouse gas to the subsoil and proceeding to an intelligent control of the global climate, by regulating carbon dioxide. of free carbon in the atmosphere. Making the planet’s forests green. The task will be carried out by the multinational AEON from Japan with experience in forest recovery, so as not to repeat the mistakes made with green credits. (We cut down 15 billion trees per year).
Likewise, there will be games to make a historic decision, change the entire fleet and move to engines with hydrogen fuel and stop polluting the environment. Sufficient funding will be available for this.
It will be possible to fight drug trafficking and corruption with the coordination of a planetary coalition government with powers assigned to the effect of eradicating the great common evils, and elected and controlled through a system of Direct Digital Democracy. It will have limited responsibilities for global issues, such as natural reserves that will no longer belong to national jurisdictions and will pass to planetary administration, as in the case of Amazonia.
Eco Planetary Government: The United Nations will implement, through the Direct Digital Democracy system, a plebiscite for the creation of a coalition Planetary Government, for whose approval there will be a vote of 50% plus one of the votes of all qualified citizens of the world.
Such a centralized government will have responsibilities in global issues, such as climate change, environmental catastrophes, vital and strategic natural resources, diseases, hunger, extreme poverty, wars, human trafficking, the defense of universal human rights. , the fight against drug trafficking and corruption.
It will have a budget equivalent to 2% of world GDP, annually. The planetary president will have a mandate for 4 years and may be reelected for a second period. The Parliament will be made up of all the citizens of the globe through Direct Digital Democracy, advised by a Science Council, made up of scientists.
The planetary government will have as a priority mission to eradicate hunger, extreme poverty, limit overpopulation and stop global warming immediately.
With 2% of world GDP, annually, it will be possible to:
- Abolish extreme poverty on the entire Earth, forever
- No more children will die of hunger and preventable diseases.
- The forests will turn green, 30 billion trees will be planted
bowls per year
- Technology will be renewed to stop polluting.
- The vehicle park will be replaced by another one that runs on hydrogen.
- Alternative energies will be developed to replace oil and coal.
- The oceans will be decontaminated.
- The Amazon and the Arctic will be saved.
- Overpopulation will be limited.
- There will be items for environmental catastrophes.
- Terrorism will be fought.
- International drug trafficking will be fought.
- Organized crime and corruption will be dismantled.
- Ecosystems will be preserved.
Global Warming Will Cause US$100 Billion Losses
GSL- “Implementing quick, global and efficient solutions to provide a fundamental solution to the problem of climate change and the depredation of the environment in general, is a matter of absolute survival. It is not a moral or ethical cause. Otherwise we carry out the necessary actions in a timely manner, with sufficient intelligence to renew the harmony between Humanity and nature, as a result there will be quantifiable economic losses of no less than 100 billion dollars in the next hundred years and millions of people will die as a result of the extension of the droughts, the lack of food and drinking water, together with the flooding of the coastal areas”, said Roberto Gomes, head of Global Solidarity, which promotes the Planetary Eco Government Project.
“The Living Planet Index – which measures more than 10,000 critical populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish – has fallen 52% between 1970 and 2010. Latin America has lost 83% of the populations of fish, birds, mammals , amphibians and reptiles in the last 40 years.At the same time, the demand for resources that we exert on natural sources already exceeds 50%, what the planet can renew and the
projections about the future, due to the growth of overpopulation and the increase in the quality of life, point to a worsening of the picture. By 2030 the pressure on nature will be 100% above the capacity of the planet and by 2050 200%. Clearly, we are depleting our world’s reserves to extract the elements of our basic subsistence,” he explained.
He also ruled that “while demand grows geometrically, desertification, ocean pollution and the loss of vital water resources are expanding. All of this indicates that “Earth Hour” is arriving, when food will be scarce and pandemics will return.
“Five of the six warmest years – he said – since 1971, that is, in 44 years, have been recorded in this 21st century. At the same time, he has highlighted the difference between this year 2015 and 2006, which is the second warmest , is 0.89 degrees Celsius, and 2010, the third hottest was 0.1 degrees Celsius than 2006. The next one, 1994, was 0.18 degrees Celsius than the last. We’ve gone through solar minimum and through a period of volcanic eruptions that release sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, which is a cooling agent. This explains the pause that has occurred in previous years in the growth curve of global warming. Now we are once again witnessing the real effects.”
Regarding global CO2 emissions, he specified that “the current average of emissions in the atmosphere oscillates around 420 ppm, or 0.040%, with some day-night variations, seasonal for the anthropic part and with localized pollution peaks. The increase has gone from 0.5 ppm/year in 1960 to 2 ppm/year in 2000, with a minimum of 0.43 in 1992 and a maximum of 3 ppm in 1998. At this rate in 2030 we will have reached 440 ppm or the fateful threshold of 450 ppm, with the consequence of an increase in global temperature of 2º degrees Celsius and probably 5º at the poles.Anthropogenic emissions increase 1.7% per year.In 1990, 20,878 Gt/year of CO2. By 2015 it is estimated that we will emit 40,000 Gt/year. In 25 years we have doubled the level of pollution. This level of CO2 in the air did not exist for 2.1 million years. And according to the International Agency for Energy, CO2 emissions will increase 130% between now and 2050”.
Regarding the claims of the “deniers”, he said that “laboratory tests show that carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm that there is less longwave radiation escaping into space at wavelengths wave in which carbon dioxide absorbs. The result of this lack of balance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years. The Greenhouse Effect of the atmosphere returns 333 W/m² back to Earth. Globally the The Earth’s surface absorbs solar energy worth 161 w/m² and receives 333 w/m² from the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, which adds up to 494 w/m², as the Earth’s surface emits (or in other words loses) a total of
493 w/m² (which
broken down into 17 w/m² of sensible heat, 80 w/m² of latent heat from water evaporation and 396 w/m² of infrared energy), it represents a net heat absorption of 0.9 w/m², which in the current weather is causing global warming”
He added that “the so-called Keeling curve shows the continuous increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958. It captures Keeling’s measurements at the Mauna Loa volcano observatory. These measurements were the first significant evidence of the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and attracted worldwide attention on the impact of greenhouse gas emissions The greenhouse effect is essential for life on the planet: without CO2 or water vapor (without the greenhouse effect) the Earth’s average temperature would be about 33 °C less than order of 18 °C below zero, which would make life unviable.Of the total CO2 emitted only 45% remains in the atmosphere, over 30% is absorbed by the oceans and the remaining 25% passes into the terrestrial biosphere. so much not only the atmosphere is increasing its concentration of CO2, it is also happening in the oceans and in the biosphere”.
He affirmed that “in the last century the global average temperature has increased by about 1º C, with the increase per decade being about 0.15º C since 1975. According to the IPCC, by the end of the century the temperature will increase by 2-3º C. It is a sudden jump in temperature, something that has not happened in the last 10,000 years and that will not allow 30% of species to adapt and therefore survive”.
“The oceans as a whole absorb a third of human CO2 emissions. Since the industrial era they have been overloaded with a total of 120×109 tons of said gas emitted from the burning of fossil fuels. This increase in CO2 in the oceans causes a drop in the pH of the water, making it more acidic and reducing the concentration of carbonates. This affects marine life, especially crustaceans and mollusks that use calcium carbonate to manufacture their exoskeletons. Even plankton can be indirectly impacted.” .
Regarding the domino effect, he said that “with global warming, ocean circulation decreases and the surface layers of water will become saturated with CO2 and will no longer be able to retain it. As the water warms, the proportion of CO2 retention by liter of sea water. This means that the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 will experience a jump and a sudden rise in temperature will occur throughout the globe. But the stoppage of ocean currents is considered very unlikely by the 2007 IPCC report, the which says nothing about the progressive heating of the water”.
Methane gas hydrate deposits, when released, can dramatically change the global average temperature by up to 6ºC and by 12ºC at the poles. Gomes says that “in the case of methane, its cumulative greenhouse effect in 20 years
is 72: for equal mass in the atmosphere, methane will trap heat 72 times more than CO2 in the next 20 years, 25 in the next 100 years, and 7.6 in the next 500 years.”
The submarine methane feedback is beginning: “seafloor methane leakage is much more widespread in the US Atlantic margin than previously thought. It is associated with a phenomenon of rising temperatures that until now has only been identified in Arctic waters, according to a study by researchers from Mississippi State University and the US Geological Survey Methane plumes identified in the marine fringe between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Georges Bank, Massachusetts, are emanating from at least 570 seafloor cold seeps on the outer continental shelf and continental slope. These cold seeps are the areas where gases and liquids seep into the overlying water from sediments.”
The IPCC projects an increase of 2º C and an increase in the level of the oceans of 1 meter by the end of the century, but the recent report of the former NASA scientist, Dr. James Hansen affirms that with only 1º C more the waters will rise up to 8 meters, at the latest in just 50 years. And he justifies this with what happened in the Eemian, 100,000 years ago.
In a more recent study, published in the journal Nature, led by Catherine Ritz of the University of Grenoble in France and Tamsin Edwards of the Open University in the United Kingdom: the most likely result, they say, is that global waters increase by 10 cm by 2100. The prospect of an increase of 30 cm or more, suggested by previous studies, has only a one in 20 chance. The study focused only on Antarctic melting.
Who to believe, Dr. Hansen’s team or the Ritz-Edwards team? In order not to be naive, we must know that oil interests are involved in the issue. Likewise, the affirmation of the 10 cms, contradicts the last report of Climate Cen
tral indicating an oceanic elevation of several meters from an increase of 2º C.
Gomes concluded that “to overcome this new picture of the situation, which places us in a “Planetary Climate Emergency”, intensive capital is needed, such as that mobilized during World War II. The message is that, for free, it will not be a solution to environmental problems. In In this sense, from GSL, we propose the Green Solidarity Fund of 2% of the world GDP, annually, to meet this demand, or the option of the Planetary Army saving 1 trillion dollars per year, among all the countries that adhere to the new coalition An extraordinary situation has been created that requires extraordinary resources. The cost is two trillion dollars per year. Either this, or chaos within two decades. Consider that the United States alone has 1,700 coastal locations. The main cities of the world are
coastlines and hundreds of millions of people live there. When they flood where will they go? what will they eat? what will they drink? where will they sleep? I repeat the same thing, this is a matter of survival and pure logic. Is Dr. Hansen right or wrong?”
Recently the situation has changed and worsened. According to a WMO report, the threshold of 1.5º C will be broken in the next 5 years and then great intercontinental structural droughts may occur and as a consequence between 2 and 4 billion people worldwide will die of hunger. We must act immediately and reduce to zero emissions by 2030. The data modifies all previous projections.
*According to the WHO, 7 million people per year die prematurely from air pollution. Calculating one thousand dollars per month and per year, for 30 years for each of these victims, this supposes a total loss of 2,520,000,000,000 dollars for the global system. In other words, 2.5 trillion per year, losses that are already increasing, which justifies the investment of 2% of world GDP.