<\/p>\n
Cross-posted from the Wonk Room<\/a>. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n A new scientific report, the Copenhagen Prognosis<\/a>, A broader analysis of tipping points and feedbacks reinforces the conclusion that greenhouse <\/a>The Prognosis indicates that for a “good chance” (75 percent) of avoiding <\/p>\n This is indeed an “almost overwhelming challenge,” but “there is no evidence suggesting it is impossible:”<\/p>\n To the contrary, the growing body of analytical work examining such scenarios at the global and regional level suggest it is not only technically feasible but also economically affordable, even profitable<\/strong>.<\/p>\n It should come as little surprise that a clean-energy economy is not <\/p>\n The Copenhagen Accord<\/a> reaffirms the goal of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees C <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Copenhagen Prognosis was prepared by top climate scientists, including the Stockholm Environment Institute<\/a>‘s Sivan Kartha, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research<\/a>‘s Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, and was endorsed by IPCC director Rachendra Pachauri’s Energy Resources Institute<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n We’ve passed the threshold of safety and security, and each <\/p>\n We need to separate the science—that we are at unsafe levels of <\/p>\n We know that any deadline or target to eradicate hunger and poverty Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Copenhagen blame game is obstacle to 2010 climate deal<\/a><\/p>\n Greenpeace Spain demands Denmark release its director<\/a><\/p>\n
outlines the terrible challenge the world faces from climate change—as well as several paths to safety. World leaders in Copenhagen
struggled to come to a provisional accord that would provide a
framework for sustainable civilization. But a team of the world’s top
climate scientists have offered a stinging indictment of the political
process, noting that the unofficial commitments made are “not consistent with the expressed political will to protect humanity<\/a>:”<\/p>\n
gas (GHG) emission reductions targets currently being tabled within the
political realm are not consistent with the expressed political will to
protect humanity<\/strong> against high risks of devastating climate impacts and significant risks of self-amplifying global warming.<\/p>\n
“major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest of the
century and beyond … global GHG emissions would almost certainly need
to decline extremely rapidly after 2015, and reach essentially zero by
midcentury.”<\/p>\n
just more sustainable but more profitable than one based on the
reckless waste of unrecoverable resources—but economists are just now
beginning to recognize that fact<\/a>.<\/p>\n
above pre-industrial levels, but negotiators jettisoned the target of cutting global warming emissions in half by 2050<\/a>. Even that goal, the Copenhagen Prognosis finds, is utterly insufficient:<\/p>\n
additional ton of carbon, each year emissions rise, each year
concentrations do not drop—we are killing people.<\/p>\n
greenhouse gases and our destabilized climate is killing people—from
the policy of setting deadlines and targets.<\/p>\n
is insufficient, but we make them anyway. We need the same
understanding with climate change.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/a.rfihub.com\/eus.gif?eui=2223\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"