This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

We've blown past another unpleasant climate milestone on behalf of our planet. At the end of September, the planet is supposed to exist at a yearly low bespeak in atmospheric CO2 concentrations later on a summer of green leafy things sucking upward the CO2 and breathing out oxygen. (Most of the people and most of the plants are in the Northern Hemisphere, which means our summer is basically the i that matters. Sorry, everyone else.) Simply this year, the unabridged planet has hovered above 400 ppm of CO2 with no indication that nosotros'll for some reason experience a precipitous drop. Information technology's not because we're running out of copse. It's because we're putting more and more than carbon dioxide in the air.

9_27_16_Brian_400PMM4Eva_720_492_s_c1_c_c

No, there's no huge tipping betoken where 399 ppm would have been A-OK but now 400 is climate apocalypse. It'southward not similar that. Four hundred is just another number we actually didn't want to reach. Iv hundred was a identify that some optimistic folks thought, if we all really pulled together, we could get our carbon emissions to level off. The models where everyone immediately quit dumping any carbon into the temper would accept meant a net global temperature increase of "only" a couple degrees Celsius.

But it'south nigh more than than absolute CO2 levels. It's about surface area nether the bend. Carbon emitted today stays in the atmosphere for decades. New research accounting for this twelvemonth's El Niño and its impact on CO2 concentrations just came out, and it predicts that humans will probably not come across an temper that has less than 400 ppm of CO2 once again, at least within our lifetimes. Ralph Keeling of the Scripps Institute for Oceanography thinks the change is permanent: that we'll never see atmospheric CO2 again, ever.

Nosotros've been getting readings of 400 ppm or higher since 2013, and the last holdout climate observatory at the S Pole finally reported that its atmospheric CO2 readings had risen to 400 ppm in May of this year. Now it's looking more like we're going to stop up at 500 within a few decades, considering we go on on emitting more and more than CO2.

I'thou not here to debate about the scientific discipline. The science is settled. But considering it's a pretty swirly rainbow picture, please observe the granularity we had for CO2 monitoring back in 2006:

We have no well-articulated precedent for dealing with the attendant warming. Even if we equally a species quit driving our cars and heating our homes today, the temperature would withal go along to ascent by a caste or so until information technology leveled off several generations hence. The models take get less and less optimistic as the scientific community is disabused of the notion that anyone else gives a damn about this. Now nosotros're staring downwardly the butt of three, four, v degrees Celsius warmer: terra incognita for mankind. Nosotros talk almost climate change as if it'south in the future, but we're seeing ascent seas, conditions extremes and climate drift at present. Clearly it'll be business concern as usual until something tangible forces our hand.

For a while Silicon Valley went gaga about the notion of "disrupting" the status quo. Simply that bubbly techno-optimism seems to accept fizzled out, and not least where information technology concerns greenish tech, a term with problems all its ain. Why? It's because so far nobody'southward shiny carbon-capture widgets can actually deal with the scope of the problems nosotros face up. You can't just throw gadgetry at human bureaucracy. (Well, you could, but you lot might go arrested.) Fe filings in the ocean won't make petroleum any less attractive.

That's actually part of the problem. The onus for climate alter absolutely cannot be on the consumer. The consumer has so little power as an individual, and they certainly won't unite every bit a whole to voice a single, principled statement against the companies that fuel their cars and go along their lights on. Changing our light bulbs to spiral ones is supposed to suck protons out of the acidifying oceans? Take your canvas bags to the supermarket? What price domestic lifestyle changes on the short term when the petroleum industry doesn't have to mind its CO2 emissions?

Consumers won't cede their standard of living for the idea of some displaced Third World person somewhere. That'due south where all our consumer goods are manufactured, and those nations are the ones that stand to be hardest hit by climate change: the isle countries similar Indonesia, the depression-lying river deltas in Vietnam and Bangladesh. Toothless laws will practice no good, just and so far there's been no good way to subtract carbon emissions without cheating someone. We blew off Paris and Kyoto. Nobody will consent to cap and trade. Nosotros're running out of options.

Carbon assets nonetheless in the footing were worth some $27 trillion in 2012. To follow scientific warnings and quit piping them out would mean sacrificing the turn a profit of whatever we left down in that location. Corporations have i purpose: to enrich shareholders (some rare 501(c)3s excluded). No company is going to act confronting its self-interest and quit extracting that resource.

Ambulatory shitposts like Donald Trump don't assistance.

Scientists and politicians are being timid considering they rightly don't recollect at that place'due south any chance that calling out industry will actually lead to any change. It'southward learned helplessness, because since we ceded personhood to corporations, they've risen to relative dominance in politics and the ecosystem alike. Nothing else changes its environment on the scale nosotros humans practice. And we need inexpensive energy to sustain our societies.

The combined impact of the natural gas, electricity, and HVAC sectors is between a quarter and a 3rd of global carbon emissions, depending on who you ask. Call back nigh this. We could go all-renewable in our residential electric and HVAC infrastructure, change nix else — no changes to agronomics, manufacturing, the service industry, zippo — and still lop off almost a quarter of our global carbon emissions. Only the sheer magnitude of the changes we'd have to make is itself discouraging. Face it: the threat of a hundred million climate refugees isn't enough to milk shake usa out of our carbon rut, so why would polar bears make the departure? Between lobbyists, NIMBYism, and the financial cost of changing infrastructure, environmentalism is expressionless in the water.

Maybe it's fourth dimension to take the sunk cost of putting the residue of our carbon budget into the atmosphere and start thinking about ways to actively scrub it out at scale, and what we'd do with the resulting mess of CO2. Maybe it'southward not techno-optimism nosotros need. Maybe nosotros need a healthy dose of techno-cynicism. Or mayhap we should just plan to send information technology all to Mars on Elon Musk's new BFR and use it there to prop up the temper then plants can abound, so we can terraform it into Earth 2.0.

At a certain indicate y'all outset wondering whether anyone's listening at all. Climate change denialists, you are the reason we tin can't have nice things. Now: Let's everyone start running around in a circumvolve like our hair is on fire, shall we?

jp091213