Blogs

  • News
  • |
  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science
Dinosaur Tracking

Where paleontology meets pop culture

Hominid Hunting

Meet the members of the tangled human family tree

Innovations

How human ingenuity is changing the way we live

Surprising Science

Ideas, news and discoveries from the world of science


December 16, 2012

Climate Change Tipping Point: Research Shows That Emission Reductions Must Occur by 2020

Without cutting emissions by 2020, avoiding catastrophic levels of global warming, including ice melt and sea level rise, will be extremely unlikely. Image via Wikimedia Commons/Christof Berger

For years, most of us have envisioned climate change as a long-term problem that requires a long-term solution. But as the years pass—and with the calendar soon to flip over to 2013—without any substantial attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, this impression needs to change in a hurry.

According to a new paper published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, there’s a startlingly small number we need to keep in mind when dealing with climate change: 8. That’s as in 8 more years until 2020, a crucial deadline for reducing global carbon emissions if we intend to limit warming to 2°C, according to a team of researchers from a trio of research institutions—the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and ETH Zurich in Switzerland, along with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado—who authored the paper.

They came to the finding by looking at a range of different scenarios for emissions levels in 2020 and projecting outward how much warming each one would cause for the planet as a whole by the year 2100. They found that in order to have a good chance at holding long-term warming to an average of 2°C worldwide—a figure often cited as the maximum we can tolerate without catastrophic impacts—annual emissions of carbon dioxide (or equivalent greenhouse gas) in 2020 can be no higher than 41 to 47 gigatons worldwide.

That’s a problem when you consider the fact that we’re currently emitting 50 gigatons annually; if present trends continue, that number will rise to 55 gigatons by 2020. In other words, unless we want catastrophic levels of warming, we need to do something, quickly.

The researchers also weighed a number of technological approaches that could help us bring this figure down by 2020: mass conversion to nuclear power generation, rapid adoption of energy-efficient appliances and buildings, electric vehicle usage and other means of reducing fossil fuel use. “We wanted to know what needs to be done by 2020 in order to be able to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius for the entire twenty-first century,” said Joeri Rogelj, the lead author of the paper, in a statement.

It turns out that some combination of all of these methods will be necessary. But lowering global energy demand—in large part, by increasing efficiency—is by far the easiest route to making a dent in emissions soon enough to hit the goal by 2020.

If the reduction target isn’t reached by 2020, avoiding catastrophic warming could theoretically still be possible, the researchers note, but the cost of doing so would only increase, and our options would narrow. If we start cutting emissions now, for example, we might be able to hit the goal without increasing nuclear power generation, but wait too long and it becomes a necessity.

Waiting past 2020 would also require more costly changes. In that case, “you would need to shut down a coal power plant each week for ten years if you still wanted to reach the two-degree Celsius target,” said Keywan Riahi, one of the co-authors. Waiting would also make us more reliant on as-yet unproven technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and the efficient conversion of crops into biofuels.

“Fundamentally, it’s a question of how much society is willing to risk,” said David McCollum, another co-author. “It’s certainly easier for us to push the climate problem off for a little while longer, but…continuing to pump high levels of emissions into the atmosphere over the next decade only increases the risk that we will overshoot the two-degree target.”

Given the continuing failures of negotiators to come to any sort of international climate agreement—most recently highlighted by the lack of progress at the COP 18 Conference in Doha—this “risk” seems to more closely resemble a certainty. 2020 might seem a long way off, but if we spend the next 7 years stalling like we have over the past 18 years of climate negotiations, it’ll get here faster than we can imagine.



***

Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.

10 Comments »

  1. Ann says:

    Thanks for the info. In my opinion it’s already too late. Damage have been done by corrupt, greedy, evil people, and disastrous consequences for destroying our only home planet is already getting worse.

  2. Mike Haseler says:

    The magic number is 15.

    15 years without warming
    15% is the maximum % of global emissions that are now covered by the possibility of an extension to Kyoto
    2015 is the earliest governments could possibly get a new extension to Kyoto – because most government’s don’t believe this non-science about CO2

    The other magic figure is 1°C. Because that’s the scientifically based figure of the greenhouse effect of CO2 for a doubling of the level of CO2.

    1°C is also the figure which even the highly biased report of Stern says will be economically beneficial. There’s a simple reason for this: no one can deny CO2 is a plant food – but isn’t it strange how that simple fact which underpins all life on earth is quietly forgotten by all the religious nutters who push this non-science!

  3. Richard Misior says:

    We are doomed because, as far as I am aware, there are is not going to be any international agreement to reduce the co2 emission before 2020. We may as well accept that we are going to have a catastrophic Man Made global warming. So, why worry about doing anything?

    This is an absolute rubbish, of course. In their usual fashion to make headlines the researchers have ignored, or deliberately omitted, several very important factors influencing our climate, and it certainly has nothing to do with humans or even co2.

    One of them is water vapor, which is totally ignored by the IPCC and all researches trying to please them. Water vapor and clouds account for about 90 percent of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, CO2 amounts for about 3.5 percent. Have you ever wondered why the night time temperatures are mild near the coast but
    are colder inland, even in summer? It is particularly evident in the desert, where you can have frost at night inland but quite mild in coastal areas. The reason for this is obviously the reduced moisture in the air away from the sea, while the CO2 concentration is the same everywhere! CO2 contributes very little to the greenhouse effect indeed. If it were not for the oceans and water vapor we would freeze at night and no amount of co2 would save us.

    Despite the obvious alarm expressed by the writer of this article, I would like to assure him that all is well with the world, as far as the global warming is concerned. It will not “run away” and may have some cooling down soon, regardless of what we do or not do. Just like it always done in the past.

  4. Mitchekid says:

    You will not stop climate change. The earth is slowly returning to the temp. it had before the ice age. You know, when palm trees grew in Alaska.

  5. Jonathan says:

    It was articles like this that prompted me to cancel my subscription and several gift subscriptions to the print magazine. Smithsonian has become a purveyor of junk science.

  6. JJ says:

    Electric vehicles? The demographic for the typical electric car customer in the U.S. is an individual making $170,000 per year who buys an electric as their second or third family vehicle, presumably after the Lexus and Range Rover. When I see Al Gore and his rich eco-pals giving up their gas guzzling private jets and 15,000 ft. air conditioned mansions I’ll be more inclined to buy the ashes and sack cloth lifestyle their pushing on the peasants.

  7. virtueorvice says:

    This suggests that we need more aware people and more scientists. I’m afraid politicians and ordinary people won’t do anything helpful unless they are properly educated, and forced to taking serious measurements, by the scientists!

  8. Richard Misior says:

    Just saw the news that the International Energy Agency said that coal will replace oil as the main energy source by 2020. The main culprits here are India and China. What it means is that we not only won’t be able to cut co2 emission, but we will greatly increase it. What a turnaround! It flies in the face of two decades of propaganda from the IPCC and likeminded institutions.
    So what is going on here? Are Chinese and Indian leaders suicidal? Hardly, nor would they condemn their children to sweltering in the runaway greenhouse effect. What it really means is that, unlike EU and some other countries that jumped on the bandwagon of IPCC scare tactics with huge ulterior motives, China and India could see through it. Some other countries are now moving in the same direction. They realize that there is no real alternative to fossil fuel at present. The trendy wind mills and solar panels are too expensive and work only some of the time, while nuclear power isn’t all that benign.
    So, it looks like we are going to burn coal with great abandon for quite some time to come. Will it hurt out climate? Not really. Will the IPCC be dismantled? Not yet, they still have some steam left, but the writing is on the wall.

  9. RayJ says:

    The thing that seems to be missing from the discussions about climate change/global warming is the recognition that it is but one aspect of the ecological imprint the human race has made on the planet. people tend to be fixated on one thing or another and ignore that whole picture. Take coal – all that is generally talked about is burning it and some people’s claims of ‘clean coal’ technology. The mining of coal, with mountain top removal as a method and what is done with the coal ash – remember when one of the storage facilities gave way a couple years ago and did a number on the surrounding area – seem to be ignored as part of the total cost of using coal. The trends do not look good when you look at it as the total impact of our footprint. I don’t have an answer but to say it’s not possible to make the planet unable to sustain our (ever increasing) numbers is, in my opinion, a very ignorant position to take.

  10. There is currently a private sector device attempting to gain a foothold that has the ability to drastically reduce vehicle emissions by improving the efficiency of the combustion process. The 3rd party test results can be viewed at http://www.mileagemaxer.com
    Imagine all currently manufactured automobiles reducing exhaust emissions to “O”
    That would make the difference until a new approach to transportation is developed. And it is possible right NOW!

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement



Follow Us

Travel with Smithsonian






Advertisement