This is the third article in a five-part series about the environment.
Not to keep you in suspense, we’ll begin with the conclusion: The Earth is burning up and there are no hopeful signs that we can cool it down and avoid the inevitable -- an uninhabitable Earth.
First a benchmark: Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, usually defined as the mid-1800s, temperatures have increased just over 1° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit). That increase has brought the havoc we are experiencing today.
Thus, the entire environmental world has dedicated itself to keeping temperatures from rising above 1.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit). Keep these two facts in mind as you read on.
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise at least 2.5° Celsius (4.5° Fahrenheit) this century, surpassing the agreed to goal and “causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet.” (The average temperature in 2024 was 1.6° Celsius (2.88° Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, according the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service. This was a major increase of 0.1° Celsius from 2023.
For the first time since record keeping began, global temperatures in November 2023 exceeded a 2° Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) increase from pre-industrial levels.
True, the two-degree increase was for just one day and may be transitory. But it nevertheless is a very troubling sign. If the temperature does not drop, the world will hit an ongoing two-degree increase in the 2040s and 2050s.
Climate experts envision famines, conflicts and mass migrations driven by scorching heat waves, raging wildfires, floods and higher ocean temperatures leading to storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those we have ever experienced.
Even fractions of a degree matter: Each extra tenth means 140 million more people suffering in dangerous heat.
Professor Joeri Rogelj, at the Imperial College in London, observed, “Every fraction of a degree…whether 1.4° Celsius, 1.5° Celsius or 1.6° Celsius brings more harm to people and ecosystems, underscoring the continued need for ambitious emissions cuts.”
This warming will speed the melting of glaciers and rising of seas, damage farm crops, increase contamination of the air, lessen the availability of clean water, kill off coral reefs which are vital to sea life, and impact just about every sector of the planet with is needed for a habitable Earth.
The Guardian reported in August 2024 that “today’s global climate…is unparalleled. It has not been as hot as this for at least 125,000 years, prior to the last ice age, and most likely longer, potentially going back one million years.”
In story after story, as in coverage of the Los Angeles fires, newscasts report “There is no relief in sight,” “No one knows when temperatures will ease,” “We are in for a long spell,” and so forth.
The reason “there is no relief in sight” is because this is --- to use a cliché --- the new normal. We may experience some relief from lower temperatures from time to time, but overall, temperatures will continue to rise.
In a survey of hundreds of scientists conducted by The Guardian, 77 percent of respondents believe global temperatures will reach at least 2.5° Celsius (4.5° Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels; almost half – 42 percent -- think it will be more than 3° Celsius (5.4° Fahrenheit) and only 6 percent believe the l.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit) limit will be achieved.
And, if you are still hopeful, you may not want to read any further. I’ll explain.
The most common goal cited to control global warming can only be described as suicidal. Environmental experts, scholars, scientists and organizations all seem to be in unison that we should work to keep temperatures below a 1.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit) increase,
Now, I am guessing that you concluded, as I have, if an increase of 1° Celsius is bad and causing so much damage then a rise to 1.5° Celsius must be worse. Exactly!
When I first noticed this apparent contradiction of the 1.5° Celsius goal while working on a book on the environment, I contacted some scholars because, being a layman, I thought I might have “missed” something. I did not. Here is a summary of the replies I received:
“We should be aiming to limit warming to 1° Celsius or even reduce it to 0 degree Celsius…[but] no one in the scientific community has stated that it’s technically possible to limit warming below 1.5° Celsius in the foreseeable future because each addition tenth of a degree in warming is already ‘baked in’ so there is little we can do about it. Thus, 1.5° Celsius has come to represent the best-case scenario -- albeit one which will be catastrophic… (emphasis mine).”
The world’s powers and decision makers have recognized that the temperatures cannot be reduced and have touted the limit to the 1.5° Celsius goal as a desirable objective without any explanation to the public of the drastic consequences.
Even the Paris Agreement, the legally binding international agreement adopted in 2015 under the auspices of the United Nations Climate Change Conference known as COP21, 196 parties agreed to work to keep temperatures below the 1.5° Celsius increase.
Why no one, not the scientists, the media, the environmental organizations working to save the Earth -- no one -- has warned about the consequences of reaching 1.5° Celsius, I don’t know. Perhaps they want to maintain hope or not create panic.
Whatever the reason, we are on a very destructive, deadly path and one created and nurtured by mankind and one from which, regrettably, we cannot escape.
Before we moved on, in January the average temperature increase was 1.75° Celsius (3.4° Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, the hottest month ever recorded.
Now, why is the Earth heating up?
The principal and short answer: Greenhouse gases are trapping heat and keeping it from escaping back into space.
The four major gases involved are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases.
In this column we will focus on CO2 which accounts for 80 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity. The other three are also problematic, particularly methane that is much more powerful than CO2, but it has a shorter atmospheric lifespan.
Where does CO2 come from? The burning of fossil fuels, i.e. coal, petroleum, natural gas and oil.
Our World in Data reports that in 1950, we emitted 6 billion tonnes (a tonne equals 2204.6 pounds and is used by the British) of greenhouse gasses; in 2023, we emitted more than 37 billion tonnes or, very roughly, five tonnes per person in the world.
I am confident that as you are reading this, you are becoming angry at the obvious emitters, i.e. cars, trucks, factories and the like. The three major commercial culprits: the burning of fossil fuels for transportation, generation to create electricity and industry.
But the next time you get on an airplane, you might reflect that you (and I) are exacerbating the problem by flying. With an estimated 100,000 passenger, cargo and military flights in the world each day, the airline industry accounted for 2.5 percent of global emissions in 2023. It emits 1 billion tons of CO2 each year, more than most countries.
An irony and contradiction: former Vice President Al Gore traveled the world to promote his awarding-winning book and movie, “An Inconvenient Truth, “which warns about the environmental crisis we face. He did more than 1,000 presentations flying around the globe and emitting tons of CO2.
Taking a cruise? I’m pretty sure you never thought about emissions of CO2 from cruise ships while you are sunning on a deck. The largest cruise line, Carnival, produced more CO2 in 2023 -- 2.6 million metric tons --- than the entire city of Glasgow, Scotland --population 620,000 -- which recorded 2.43 million metric tons.
What can we do about this mess?
Unfortunately, very little, if anything, given the economic and political hurdles which need to be overcome.
Some 200 countries -- the entire world -- have attended 29 annual international summit meetings (COPs) -- with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Every time they met, things were worse than the previous year. They could not overcome political and economic considerations and, worse, there is no way to hold countries accountable even after they make commitments.
All of this should make us hot under the collar, but regrettably it doesn’t.
—————
Berl Falbaum is a political author and journalist and the author of several books.
Not to keep you in suspense, we’ll begin with the conclusion: The Earth is burning up and there are no hopeful signs that we can cool it down and avoid the inevitable -- an uninhabitable Earth.
First a benchmark: Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, usually defined as the mid-1800s, temperatures have increased just over 1° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit). That increase has brought the havoc we are experiencing today.
Thus, the entire environmental world has dedicated itself to keeping temperatures from rising above 1.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit). Keep these two facts in mind as you read on.
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise at least 2.5° Celsius (4.5° Fahrenheit) this century, surpassing the agreed to goal and “causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet.” (The average temperature in 2024 was 1.6° Celsius (2.88° Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, according the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service. This was a major increase of 0.1° Celsius from 2023.
For the first time since record keeping began, global temperatures in November 2023 exceeded a 2° Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) increase from pre-industrial levels.
True, the two-degree increase was for just one day and may be transitory. But it nevertheless is a very troubling sign. If the temperature does not drop, the world will hit an ongoing two-degree increase in the 2040s and 2050s.
Climate experts envision famines, conflicts and mass migrations driven by scorching heat waves, raging wildfires, floods and higher ocean temperatures leading to storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those we have ever experienced.
Even fractions of a degree matter: Each extra tenth means 140 million more people suffering in dangerous heat.
Professor Joeri Rogelj, at the Imperial College in London, observed, “Every fraction of a degree…whether 1.4° Celsius, 1.5° Celsius or 1.6° Celsius brings more harm to people and ecosystems, underscoring the continued need for ambitious emissions cuts.”
This warming will speed the melting of glaciers and rising of seas, damage farm crops, increase contamination of the air, lessen the availability of clean water, kill off coral reefs which are vital to sea life, and impact just about every sector of the planet with is needed for a habitable Earth.
The Guardian reported in August 2024 that “today’s global climate…is unparalleled. It has not been as hot as this for at least 125,000 years, prior to the last ice age, and most likely longer, potentially going back one million years.”
In story after story, as in coverage of the Los Angeles fires, newscasts report “There is no relief in sight,” “No one knows when temperatures will ease,” “We are in for a long spell,” and so forth.
The reason “there is no relief in sight” is because this is --- to use a cliché --- the new normal. We may experience some relief from lower temperatures from time to time, but overall, temperatures will continue to rise.
In a survey of hundreds of scientists conducted by The Guardian, 77 percent of respondents believe global temperatures will reach at least 2.5° Celsius (4.5° Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels; almost half – 42 percent -- think it will be more than 3° Celsius (5.4° Fahrenheit) and only 6 percent believe the l.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit) limit will be achieved.
And, if you are still hopeful, you may not want to read any further. I’ll explain.
The most common goal cited to control global warming can only be described as suicidal. Environmental experts, scholars, scientists and organizations all seem to be in unison that we should work to keep temperatures below a 1.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit) increase,
Now, I am guessing that you concluded, as I have, if an increase of 1° Celsius is bad and causing so much damage then a rise to 1.5° Celsius must be worse. Exactly!
When I first noticed this apparent contradiction of the 1.5° Celsius goal while working on a book on the environment, I contacted some scholars because, being a layman, I thought I might have “missed” something. I did not. Here is a summary of the replies I received:
“We should be aiming to limit warming to 1° Celsius or even reduce it to 0 degree Celsius…[but] no one in the scientific community has stated that it’s technically possible to limit warming below 1.5° Celsius in the foreseeable future because each addition tenth of a degree in warming is already ‘baked in’ so there is little we can do about it. Thus, 1.5° Celsius has come to represent the best-case scenario -- albeit one which will be catastrophic… (emphasis mine).”
The world’s powers and decision makers have recognized that the temperatures cannot be reduced and have touted the limit to the 1.5° Celsius goal as a desirable objective without any explanation to the public of the drastic consequences.
Even the Paris Agreement, the legally binding international agreement adopted in 2015 under the auspices of the United Nations Climate Change Conference known as COP21, 196 parties agreed to work to keep temperatures below the 1.5° Celsius increase.
Why no one, not the scientists, the media, the environmental organizations working to save the Earth -- no one -- has warned about the consequences of reaching 1.5° Celsius, I don’t know. Perhaps they want to maintain hope or not create panic.
Whatever the reason, we are on a very destructive, deadly path and one created and nurtured by mankind and one from which, regrettably, we cannot escape.
Before we moved on, in January the average temperature increase was 1.75° Celsius (3.4° Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, the hottest month ever recorded.
The principal and short answer: Greenhouse gases are trapping heat and keeping it from escaping back into space.
The four major gases involved are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases.
In this column we will focus on CO2 which accounts for 80 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity. The other three are also problematic, particularly methane that is much more powerful than CO2, but it has a shorter atmospheric lifespan.
Where does CO2 come from? The burning of fossil fuels, i.e. coal, petroleum, natural gas and oil.
Our World in Data reports that in 1950, we emitted 6 billion tonnes (a tonne equals 2204.6 pounds and is used by the British) of greenhouse gasses; in 2023, we emitted more than 37 billion tonnes or, very roughly, five tonnes per person in the world.
I am confident that as you are reading this, you are becoming angry at the obvious emitters, i.e. cars, trucks, factories and the like. The three major commercial culprits: the burning of fossil fuels for transportation, generation to create electricity and industry.
But the next time you get on an airplane, you might reflect that you (and I) are exacerbating the problem by flying. With an estimated 100,000 passenger, cargo and military flights in the world each day, the airline industry accounted for 2.5 percent of global emissions in 2023. It emits 1 billion tons of CO2 each year, more than most countries.
An irony and contradiction: former Vice President Al Gore traveled the world to promote his awarding-winning book and movie, “An Inconvenient Truth, “which warns about the environmental crisis we face. He did more than 1,000 presentations flying around the globe and emitting tons of CO2.
Taking a cruise? I’m pretty sure you never thought about emissions of CO2 from cruise ships while you are sunning on a deck. The largest cruise line, Carnival, produced more CO2 in 2023 -- 2.6 million metric tons --- than the entire city of Glasgow, Scotland --population 620,000 -- which recorded 2.43 million metric tons.
Unfortunately, very little, if anything, given the economic and political hurdles which need to be overcome.
Some 200 countries -- the entire world -- have attended 29 annual international summit meetings (COPs) -- with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Every time they met, things were worse than the previous year. They could not overcome political and economic considerations and, worse, there is no way to hold countries accountable even after they make commitments.
All of this should make us hot under the collar, but regrettably it doesn’t.
—————
Berl Falbaum is a political author and journalist and the author of several books.
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Three-County & Full Pass also available
