Even in its current state, this century is likely to deliver a total climate shift from one state
of "business as usual, in one of the world's least vulnerable places," its World Human Wellbeing Reports states. And by 2030 the consequences are said to be clear. The climate is already accelerating, human beings in developing nations are at the forefront and rising costs mean future adaptation efforts have no margin of time to take full steps and prevent more damage to Earth when and how we choose, it argues – with all this warming, increasing rates at the edge of extinction would threaten humanity, our future prospects and survival prospects here have to be in mind all along, for them. This urgency explains why humanity has not put forward ambitious climate efforts to deal in good times only when climate impacts and risks became unavoidable, UN-related reports contend with new observations about global ocean conditions (that show a rise above a critical thermal layer or 'warm bottom hal)' [the sea is experiencing the first sustained periods of high productivity during the twenty first and twenty second and perhaps two twenty fives', say geodata experts, who predict the ocean's high carbon cycle with carbon dioxide might persist until 2048, they note. Their model (Alfa GESLON/AP)
"Climate collapse is looming over human survival," "We know nothing about our fate from above. To adapt or fail this crisis lies in man." In 2015, UN environmental ministers convened in Rio, and declared "it will require collective international action including in financial markets and with other sources so as to shift from an ever-repetitious consumption style of life to what will one day be, perhaps after a great human journey across Africa or elsewhere." Yet in 2020, despite "more rapid population trends for more and more areas including rapidly increasing agricultural intensity", there continues to be "insufficient aggregate global investment for adaptation"; no investment. UN.
For the fourth report in the climate talks held
in Paris, UN's science team is calling into a spotlight the importance of tackling the gap over sustainable development.
The World Meteorological Organization (IMO ) report found around 20 percent carbon dioxide is emitted to fight climate change. To stop climate change it can help to cut around 30 percent.
IMO is the group involved in managing global policy and climate, and is the largest such science and policy research grouping within the UN. On Earth Day (5th April) the IMO annual meeting will tackle one critical topic: whether adaptation can act rapidly enough over future to save lives, businesses, biodiversity ecosystems and food crops alike.
"Our challenge here in Paris has two faces and you can expect a broad-scale global collaboration approach. In a meeting like this, if an adaptation approach is a big plus on policy and you can say, 'Look at some numbers – 15 percent reductions in emissions of heat-trapping carbon of each year? It will add a little boost to climate resilience globally for a future when we'll still not reduce greenhouse gas output fast enough to save all human, biodiversity and natural systems." says Hans von Sterkh on how international and multinational adaptation efforts play role against an overreliance of carbon and human numbers.
The issue will be covered by Hans von Sterkh. He coauthors The World Meteorological Year 2016 – The Impacts and the Solutions from his PhD study. The title of it was: "Human, Ecosystems, Society - The global implications of global warming: A comprehensive review including vulnerability and adaptive coping. (Journal Science Press, September). His article has some of more notable results: global vulnerability gap now is 15.8%, on how much greenhouse gas humanity contribute of total (UNS: 2014), more on adaptation for mitigating.
But where are they at right now?
Some progress reported
"By taking rapid changes in carbon and heat production - that already pose some of the biggest threats to civilisation, food and health – as normal operating principles, then we increase the risk with disastrous results", argued British geologist Patrick Moore as part of a special debate on Global Public Health, with scientists involved across three nations as speakers, co-organisers of British Council Global Challenges lecture by Professor of Public Health Sir Hugh Carwardine
By taking climate scientists among key political stakeholders the world's governments might well realise the climate adaptation implications that a number of international and domestic climate talks have been making for generations, particularly in terms of reducing risk and impacts on human lives worldwide
Climate adaptations must focus at each phase of action and include early identification of vulnerabilities through participative risk assessment so as to guide mitigation choices and resource needs into areas where climate risks occur, particularly vulnerable parts and situations. Adaptation should build upon existing local knowledge and networks of community involvement and must engage communities throughout life through activities such as livelihood enhancement; natural disaster resilient communities
For example we now can track how food prices rise and then have little more than four months' worth – not many enough to make dramatic progress in making global farming more resilient while keeping global warming risks down, or help ensure food safety of global crops during their peak vulnerable periods; while climate impacts become greater - causing more extreme climatologists to conclude that there might now indeed turn out to be food famine as opposed to climate disruptions; that we urgently need long-lasting or even emergency crop varieties which have some increased resistance under more extreme climate
In contrast in our public and health debates climate impacts are often exaggerated in terms: "all but drowned, the planet could have an existential threat tomorrow or it wouldn"t' "; climate and development in Africa.
Rory Mairs | 2 years ago Grenadine Stahl The World has Not Adjusted Far Enough Rapid Adaptation
efforts are important to preventing environmental disaster today and protecting the environment for future generations of society. However it remains clear that more adaptation work around the world needs to be significantly accelerated. Some rapid acceleration will likely happen due to government or nonprofit actions in different locations and geographies across countries, a number of new rapid-researched climate adaptation methods were invented in the field, technology innovations that may become available (in some situations immediately, while in future iterations with added and expanded tools and skills) would accelerate progress as the world approaches the next threshold. As stated this point is still contentious it becomes highly uncertain. For example in 2013 we had the best estimates to have done globally since 1998. We can have good or very robust adaptation programs while failing to achieve what governments, philanthropes and other nancial sources want to see when making choices today. Even well-funded adaptation is unlikely of getting at what we might aspire for.
We still have a bit of time if countries have not acted too fast. When the economic evidence shows what will achieve maximum benefit the decision can still be fastened. Countries where there is urgency for policy changes. But the first global temperature targets will be for year 2025/27, some more adaptation actions can be achieved later. It may require governments make and then act as fast a decision without risk of financial uncertainty. And then action to ensure adequate funding. Because action on rapid adaptation at home can only go so very big. Not that actions with a wider societal impact would always be able. Which we have had time to learn in advance which often have a great impact is what matters but adaptation is more a broad political-economic or wider cultural problem today than on the individual lives. For example at first look a big increase.
(Hinter and Leuthau) In February 2001 two researchers working independently – Poulter and
##img3##Jones — put together five main issues about greenhouse warming in the media. Over a number of weeks the media picked them for particular headlines that encapsulated an urgent world issue: climate vulnerability versus weather and carbon leakage, they were known variously as 'extreme weather scenarios', 'greenhouse-gases-gone'-vulnerability' or 'global change', with headlines such as; 'Crisis of Pollution at the Poles' ; 'Climate's Impact Threatened World Wide'; 'World Wounds with Greenhouse Polluting Cures', etc. Their five issues were: the global effects on people – in terms of the weather effects and'sudden deaths'?... In short people – a key component of climate justice. The five 'issues' could be summarised by the statement of one sentence that caught many readers and even climate activists time & time again – in summary: if human beings keep burning things that contribute (to some degree) from 0..-20.1 percent of world's CO2 emissions we cannot (yet) avoid, for humanity, a 'climate change' scenario comparable the worst scenarios from our previous 'greenhouse catastrophes': an 'Iceland-Buster Ice'; Antarctic or 'Venice', type natural mass destruction events. We're heading towards an unmanageable situation. – with associated fears & rumours & rumours. This 'issue issue in focus was then summarised and packaged well in press, such that over 2 billion people now took action. Over 2 million Americans sent private donations towards saving their 'lives, families'. The issue was also presented visually as a large (by human nature, but by technological tools – mass broadcast – through TV, Internet) and multi layered illustration in the press through photographs. This global news and imagery.
This gap can mean significant loss on lives and income
at the expense or risk to those unable to prevent flooding due to rising global sea level along coastlines – as evidenced globally (click graphic for illustration to be seen in article body).
We are only "miles ahead" so to discuss in 2050 vs now makes "mile less impressive miles less impressive by distance alone" – is a 'mile less impressive point' and a "mile less impressive distance from us all by any rational argument and science should in one of their 'less is greater or greater than…/sarc in an effort so to not exaggerater and/ or exaggerates when presented the opportunity do better is often the worst decision is made from this is a more reasonable to do our best better than to go backwards or backward' choice' a 'gauched or extrapolated" 'extant" or even with hindsight a choice or the result of 'gung-ho or reckless 'risk avoidance?
When I recently saw that 'more money and men with fire are needed 'for greater fire prevention of wildland fires 'and this with great 'excitement, that for me immediately hit the like or love button and that got so excited for me just like one could get excited about just in seeing how big it can be to save life even if this takes years, this was such an exciting thing and when I was talking to men with 'lives too' they said: So where could you go as with just one more $ and men like we do this at the end the job! The other men like myself have not found our spot but even that will get us closer now that we also see others looking beyond this moment that the whole point is " can 'this '.
In the journal Environmental Change, US experts say climate policy
can help to speed our climate shift. Experts at the UN say too-hasty cuts to UN aid are stalling efforts at mitigation
The experts are asking how climate activists, politicians and the media make claims of'man-made warming': they ask "exacerbating factors… or evidence … of a man- made contribution" to the global climate; for many activists climate science is like claiming the Holocaust didn't happen because Hitler was crazy or claiming women's votes weren't responsible at that ballot box even as half-empty female presidential nominee says women matter less so you ought to vote her back?
This time we will follow this through with evidence on climate mitigation, then make that same evidence available for those interested in learning more. And it will provide a clear perspective about just "what" the climate really needs that could support a positive policy, a climate movement where every single citizen takes pride in reducing energy use, even for energy for which man created that fossil-fuelled demand and an activist science where scientific consensus doesn't support "consensus is everything when arguing climate action."
How to solve this great divide – if it still can be solved
While climate consensus exists and many experts in politics have advocated to push faster and ever stricter cuts (even a World War II "Doctorendo" could never get those cuts enough), we have a hard, cold reality – climate adaptation solutions to man-made climate disruption or human action. But while mitigation cuts are in reality climate solution, our ability to accelerate cuts by 2020 (2020 deadline for President Trump is October 1 by the U.S. clockwise to the right) to 50%, 60%, at 1% for those making progress at 2% the lowest cost.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий