The article I am summarizing, titled ‘Safe’ climate means ‘no to coal’, is itself a summary of recent scientific research regarding global warming. According to the article, recent scientific evidence suggests that if the world is going to avoid a 2°C rise in global temperatures, approximately three-quarters of the world’s fossil fuel reserves must remain unused (Black, 2009). It is a widely accepted scientific theory that a 2°C rise in global temperature would have serious consequences for the world, including sea level rise and melting of the polar ice caps, among others. To this end, more than 100 countries globally have decided to halve their 1990 CO2 emissions by 2050. However, this article contends that much more drastic reductions are necessary to avoid breaching a 2°C temperature rise.
Since the start of the industrial age, global temperatures are estimated to have risen 0.7°C (Black, 2009). According to this new study, if humanities total CO2 emissions exceed one trillion tons of carbon in the atmosphere, the 2°C limit is very likely to be breached. As with all mathematical models, their study has a range of temperatures that could result from a one trillion ton total, but 2°C is the most likely outcome. To this end, it is the belief of this study that reductions in CO2 need to be achieved as soon as possible, and that waiting will only increase the likelihood of exceeding the temperature threshold. Also U.S targets of 80% reductions by 2050, which would represent a 60% global reduction, are admirable, but unlikely to occur at the rate intended. For this reason, they believe new policies need to be formulated, which reduce our emissions more drastically, and sooner than initially intended.
Personally, I have been a believer in global warming for some time, so I support the findings presented in this article. The 2°C threshold has been supported by the IPCC, and many other scientific studies, which has made me a firm believer. Despite the negative impacts this will have on certain aspects of the global economy, the alternative of a broken planet has never been an acceptable outcome to me. Ideally, I would hope that this was just another scare tactic to try and get the masses on board. However, wanting something to not be true doesn’t change the facts. It is time that we took drastic measures to avoid destroying our planet, and if eliminating our CO2 use can prevent that from occurring, I am for it 100%.
--Matt Krukowski
