I do not make this stuff up. These are the scientists words, not mine. The title of this review comes directly from the article titled "Beyond Dangerous Climate Change: Emission Scenarios for a New World". It was published in January in the most prestigious academic journal in the U.K., Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
From the Abstract: "The analysis suggests that despite high-level statements to the contrary, there is now little to no chance of maintaining the global mean surface temperature at or below 2 degrees C. Moreover, the impacts associated with 2 degrees C have been revised upwards, sufficiently so that 2 degrees C now more appropriately represents the threshold between ‘dangerous’ and ‘extremely dangerous’ climate change."
The authors draw from a long list of papers that have updated the 2007 IPCC impacts from climate change. Exceeding 2 degrees C now carries with it greater risk of larger impacts. But the authors also make it crystal clear that the latest global agreement, the Copenhagen Accord, bluntly ignores scientific assumptions about the magnitude and speed of climate change associated with cumulative emissions, instead focusing on the more politically palatable "emissions reductions."
This report lays out the concepts of physical science vs. "political" science. I have always been dismayed that climate politicians have so publicly, in total neglect of the laws of physics, based such a pivotal decision making process considering the welfare of mankind on an inadequate, political assumption. This emissions limiting process is so farcical that it is like basing the load bearing capacity of a bridge on how many cars drive over it every day , instead of how heavy the cars are…
Every molecule of greenhouse gas counts in physics, including those already emitted by affluent western societies. To mitigate for climate change requires that those responsible for past emissions mitigate for past emissions. Those who will emit in the future must also mitigate for their emissions regardless of their socio-economic status. Do the more affluent societies owe a debt to those less affluent? Certainly so. We elect our leaders so that they can lead us through issues like this and do the responsible thing.
The long life of CO2 in our atmosphere means that Western societies are very, very, very responsible for climate change. In comparison, annual global emissions are only 2 percent of the total cumulative emissions that remain in our skies since the industrial revolution began. (And btw, because of warming already, CO2 stays in our skies much longer than it did in the 20th century. CO2 now lasts 300 years instead of 100 to 200 years, and 25 percent of CO2 stays in the sky forever.)
Cumulative emissions are what warms Earth, not annual emissions. Well, all emissions warm Earth, but annual emissions are responsible for only a tiny part of the warming – 2 percent per year – get it?. It is what is in our sky right now, what has accumulated over 150 years of emissions, and most importantly, over half of all the CO2 emissions that have occurred in the last 200 years have happened since 1970.
As an example of the weight of cumulative emissions vs. annual emissions, it will take about 70 years for China to catch up with the cumulative emissions of the United States, if the U.S. limits their emissions to 2000 levels and China grows at 3 percent per year for the next 20 years before leveling off with their emissions. China is the second ranked greenhouse gas emitter in world based on total emissions since 1870. The U.S. has emitted nearly three times more CO2 than the second ranked country (China.)
This is the burden of the United States, but the other Western nations are significantly responsible as well, compared to developing nations. Hiding behind emissions mitigation, and not acknowledging cumulative greenhouse gas emissions physics shows the ultimate disrespect for science, and now, because this mistreatment of reality is so, so big, it has virtually condemned this planet to experiencing Dangerous … er … make that Extremely Dangerous Climate Change.
2 Degrees C: Authors say "Slim Chance" – "Most analysts would agree that the current state of the UNFCCC process and other efforts to reduce greenhouse gases make the chances of keeping below 2 degrees C extremely slim", their words, not mine. (New et. al., 2011) Why? Economic Prosperity. The big boys at Copenhagen, the IPCC, the Stern Review, etc. all take into consideration that emissions reductions of no more than 3 to 4 percent per year are essential if economic growth is to continue. None of the "business as usual" political / science organizations consider sustainable pathways.
Our planet’s systems are grinding to a halt with the reality of planetary physics destroying existing subcontinental scale ecosystems, and we as a society continue to press for growth.
Anderson and Bows, Beyond dangerous climate change – emission scenarios for a new world, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, January14, 2011. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf+html
New et. al., Four degrees and beyond, the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications, Philosophical Trans. R Soc. January 13 2011. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/6.full.pdf+html