Freeze Warning
What would happen if we totally froze construction of new carbon-emitting devices?
If it were a game, it could be called climate freeze tag. A new study finds that freezing construction of all new carbon-emitting machines – and then letting the remaining cars, power plants and factories run until they rust away – could prevent catastrophic global warming. But such a radical solution would be possible only if we get cracking on finding non-polluting ways of producing energy.
In the current issue of Science, Steven Davis and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C. and Damon Matthews of Concordia University in Montreal, calculate the answer to a deceptively simple question: What would future global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels be if we never built another emitting device, and then let the rest live out their normal operating lives over the next 50 years? The exercise assumed that something like a current coal-fired power plant would last about 40 years, while a gasoline-powered clunker would last about 20 years.
The answer, says Davis, “surprised us.” According to climate models, average global temperatures would rise just 1.1 to 1.4 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels – well below the 2 degree rise that many scientists believe will cause catastrophic damage. And atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would stabilize at about 430 parts per million (ppm), below the 450 ppm threshold that many experts believe should be the upper limit.
The results suggest that “we haven’t reached the point of no return,” on climate, says Caldeira. “Most of the threat from climate change will come from energy infrastructure we have yet to build,” he notes. So “it is critically important that we build the right stuff now – that is, low-carbon-emission energy technologies.”
But saying “farewell to fossil fuels” will require big changes in policy and breakthroughs in energy technology, Martin Hoffert of New York University argues in an accompanying Perspective. Governments, for instance, need to dramatically step up subsidies for renewable energy sources – which currently get less than 10% of the money given to fossil fuels. “We have to stop marching the wrong way,” he writes, “before we can turn around.” – David Malakoff
Sources: Davis, S., Caldeira, K., & Matthews, H. (2010). Future CO2 Emissions and Climate Change from Existing Energy Infrastructure Science, 329 (5997), 1330-1333 DOI: 10.1126/science.1188566
Hoffert, M. (2010). Farewell to Fossil Fuels? Science, 329 (5997), 1292-1294 DOI: 10.1126/science.1195449
Image © Baldur Tryggvason
I think the positive slant of this article is a very miss-leading. What it’s basically saying is that if every single country on earth stops building ANY new carbon emitting cars, power plants etc… from back when this study was performed, we’ll JUST avoid catastrophic climate change!
To me, that’s an extremely scary thought …
I don’t know why we would give subsidies to “fossil fuels”- I’d be interested to have that claim backed up. If it’s tax breaks that hardly qualifies as a true shelling out of money that has come in like the ethanol-electric car and windmill projects get etc.
It seems the entire point of the article is wrapped up with a bow of “we have to pay and push and make great sacrifices” for this idea that really doesn’t have any scientific proof.