As TreeHugger reports : ” emissions must peak by 2020 and be reduced “well below” 1990 levels by 2050, if we are to have a “likely” (greater than 66%) chance of keeping temperature rise below 2°C by 2100. “
” If emissions peak at 2030, we may be able to hold temperature rise to 3°C. Should emissions continue on a business-as-usual trajectory, sometime between 2040-2060 we will cross the 2°C threshold. “
I had read once that they needed to peak by 2015. I also noted previously that even a mere 2°C might be too much for all of us as carbon sinks are becoming less efficient.
If countries like China will see their emissions peak much later, this means that the wealthy nations of America, Europe and the Asia- Pacific regions have to slash their own emissions ASAP and help the emerging superpowers as well.
As helping them might not prove easy to do and to think about, demanding them to do so might also work. Consuming less stuff is also important as we’re responsible for a third of China’s pollution…
If you think that nuclear is not an option, please note wealth is directly linked to energy consumption. So if emerging countries can’t use nuclear, it will be even more difficult for them to reach high levels of wealth while keeping low their per-capita emissions.
Renewables may be fine, but they are not competing well enough against coal as I noted in April. If China plans to build dozens of nuclear plants, it’s not for no reason. If the IEA believes that chances to limit rising temps are “bleaker” its not for no reason…
As always, efficiency needs to clearly step up worldwide as it is the single best solution we have.
Meanwhile, emissions are climbing, and even climbing faster than ever…
