Most recently there's been more concern over various possibilities for abrupt climate change, rather than gradual and fairly even change (which given the interactions and delicate balances thrown awry, was always an illusion.)
The general question was asked in this Washington Post piece, with reference to a new study. The Post piece begins: It has been quite the week for climate change news: We’ve learned that scientists can now quantify the United States’ expected levels of inundation by rising seas, that droughts in the Amazon could triple, and much more. But the most troubling study, the article says, suggests that "out of 37 abrupt changes detected in these climate simulations, fully 18 of them occurred at temperature levels less than 2 degrees Celsius of warming." Keeping projecting heating to that 2 degrees is the goal of the Paris meeting to begin in early December.
One of these possibilities is abrupt climate change caused by movement in the North Atlantic current that history shows could radically change climate in North America and Europe, paradoxically bringing a kind of Ice Age--the so-called Day After Tomorrow thesis, named after that 2004 movie, although it was also part of Kim Stanley Robinson's Science in Washington trilogy. Both fictions were based on scientific explanation--the possibility was taken seriously for awhile, then deemed remote. But today, as this Salon piece notes , there are indicators that this might actually be happening, and also the ramifications. The change is less abrupt (over decades) than it is long-term, however.
Quantifying sea level rises, as mentioned in the Post piece, made news (again), and the extent and vividness of such data, as well as the experience of freakish and extreme weather, floods, fires, drought, etc. seem to be getting through. A new poll says that fully three-fourths of Americans agree that climate change is happening, about 10% more than last year.
Meanwhile, the news on the likelihood that Paris will produce a meaningful agreement continues to get better.
For example, the Guardian reports: Nearly 50 leaders of America’s defence and foreign policy establishment are calling on political and business leaders to “think past tomorrow” and lead the fight on climate change. In a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal the experts – 48 former secretaries of state and defense, national security advisers, diplomats and members of Congress from both parties – say it is time for America to claim global leadership on climate change."
Earlier, 68 US large companies joined the 12 already on board in pledging to address climate crisis causes by moving to renewable energy and making other efforts.
Also, there were suggestions of how the international agreement in Paris might be shaped: the international acceptance and preference for cap and trade systems, and the preference for a "legally binding" agreement that nevertheless includes no enforcement mechanism.
The election of Liberal Justin Trudeau as the new Prime Minister of Canada was an unexpected boost, if not on some issues like the Keystone pipeline, then on more robust commitments in a Paris agreement.
As the conference gets closer, so does the urgency in speeches by Secretary of State Kerry and others. The Dalai Lama made his strong support for an international agreement known, not only as a human imperative, but also to save fragile areas in the Himalayas, in Tibet and India. His statement was recorded, suggesting he is still fragile himself. But the Dalai Lama is also a head of state, and he may very well join members of his Tibetan government in exile at the Paris conference.
On November 13-14, there will be worldwide demonstrations and actions to raise awareness and support the Paris talks.
No comments:
Post a Comment