We meant well
Bill McKibben in the NYRB a couple of years ago:
Because humans have fundamentally altered the physical workings of planet Earth, this is going to be a century of crises, many of them more dangerous than what we’re living through now. The main question is whether we’ll be able to hold the rise in temperature to a point where we can, at great expense and suffering, deal with those crises coherently, or whether they will overwhelm the coping abilities of our civilization. The latter is a distinct possibility, as Mark Lynas’s new book, Our Final Warning, makes painfully clear.
…
A survey of the damage done at one degree is impressive and unsettling, especially since in almost every case it exceeds what scientists would have predicted thirty years ago. (Scientists, it turns out, are by nature cautious.) Lynas offers a planetary tour of the current carnage, ranging from Greenland (where melt rates are already at the level once predicted for 2070); to the world’s forests (across the planet, fire season has increased in duration by a fifth); to urban areas in Asia and the Middle East, which in the last few summers have seen the highest reliably recorded temperatures on Earth, approaching 54 degrees Celsius, or 130 degrees Fahrenheit. It is a one-degree world that has seen a girdle of bleached coral across the tropics—a 90 percent collapse in reproductive success along the Great Barrier Reef, the planet’s largest living structure—and the appalling scenes from Australia in December, as thousands of people waded into the ocean at resort towns to escape the firestorms barreling down from the hills.
And that was a couple of years ago. It’s worse now.
At two degrees’ elevated temperature, “scientists are now confident” that we will see an Arctic Ocean free of ice in the summer—when already the loss of ice in the North has dramatically altered weather systems, apparently weakening the jet stream and stalling weather patterns in North America and elsewhere. A two-degree rise in temperature could see 40 percent of the permafrost region melt away, which in turn would release massive amounts of methane and carbon, which would whisk us nearer to three degrees. But we’re getting ahead of the story. Two degrees likely also initiates the “irreversible loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet.” Even modest estimates of the resulting sea-level rise project that 79 million people will be displaced, and protecting vulnerable cities and towns just along the Eastern Seaboard of the US behind dikes and walls will cost as much as $1 million per person.
At four degrees, of course, it gets much worse again.
Depending on the study, the risk of “very large fires” in the western US rises between 100 and 600 percent; the risk of flooding in India rises twenty-fold. Right now the risk that the biggest grain-growing regions will have simultaneous crop failures due to drought is “virtually zero,” but at four degrees “this probability rises to 86%.” Vast “marine heatwaves” will scour the oceans: “One study projects that in a four-degree world sea temperatures will be above the thermal tolerance threshold of 100% of species in many tropical marine ecoregions.” The extinctions on land and sea will certainly be the worst since the end of the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago, when an asteroid helped bring the age of the dinosaurs to an end. “The difference,” Lynas notes, “is that this time the ‘meteor’ was visible decades in advance, but we simply turned away as it loomed ever larger in the sky.”
Don’t Look Up.
What Lynas’s book should perhaps have made slightly more explicit is how little margin we have to accomplish these tasks. In a coda, he writes valiantly, “It is not too late, and in fact it never will be too late. Just as 1.5°C is better than 2°C, so 2°C is better than 2.5°C, 3°C is better than 3.5°C and so on. We should never give up.” This is inarguable, at least emotionally. It’s just that, as the studies he cites makes clear, if we go to two degrees, that will cause feedbacks that take us automatically higher. At a certain point, it will be too late.
The cruise ship season has begun here. 80 thousand gallons a day.
What is the future of aviation? As far as I’m concerned, cruise ships are not an essential industry. But I don’t know how planes will fly without fossil fuels.
I don’t either, but are planes “essential” the way the ecosystem we depend on is essential? I think no, but clearly humans as a group think yes, which is why we can’t stop the runaway train.
md @1 There has been bio aviation fuel created that’s similar to bio diesel. It’s not cost effective yet and under ongoing development. Large ships not so much, the amount of fuel expendature is enormous. The diesel burning engines of smaller vessels can be converted to bio diesel, but all of these require producing large quantities of fuel at comparitively reasonable prices, including bio diesel for smaller engines. We’d be farming more for fuel than food if there were a large scale conversion, so it has a somewhat different (but large) environmental impact.
Planes are “essential” insofar as world trade is essential as too many nations have given up their capacity to make things.
Sea trade could return to sail (too slow) or nuclear (not welcome in every port), but air freight? I have no idea how to continue that without fossil fuels.
But that’s part of the point – thinking world trade is “essential” is why we’re torching the planet we depend on…or more to the point the planet the children of people now in charge will not be able to depend on. We won’t do what it takes to prevent the worst because we’re so wedded to The Way We Live Now.
This logic only goes so far. Being shot in the head 5 times is almost certainly not going to make you any less dead than being shot in the head 6 times. The guy being thrown out of the 79th floor of the Empire State Building is not “better off” than the guy being thrown out of the 80th floor in any real sense. Whether you ingest 9 or 10 times the lethal dose of cyanide, the outcome looks much the same. But, once again, none of that matters in a world where shooting you in the head 30 times, throwing you from the top floor of the Burj Khalifa, forcing you to ingest 50 times the lethal dose of cyanide, is seen as the “moderate”, “reasonable”, “responsible”, “non-extreme” option, and anything significantly less is almost universally considered crazy-talk.
…and of course if it’s never too late there is always room for more procrastination and further delays…
“Just as 1.5°C is better than 2°C, so 2°C is better than 2.5°C, 3°C is better than 3.5°C and so on. We should never give up.” This is inarguable …” Yes: https://youtu.be/LxgMdjyw8uw 16:10 We WILL Fix Climate Change! Apr 5, 2022
“future of aviation?” maddog1129 #1 There may be some possibilities.
Lloyd Alter Fact checked by Haley Mast “There Are More Colors of Hydrogen Than Green, Blue, and Gray—Meet Brown, Turquoise, and Purple ”
Real batteries got much better and cheaper, and almost nobody is talking about hydrogen as a battery anymore. But they are talking about it being used in steel making and as fuel for airplanes and ships.
Treehugger, February 8, 2022
Adam Vaughan “Hope or Hype”
Six-seater hydrogen passenger plane flew in U.K. in 2020
New Scientist Feb. 6 2021 p. 44
Elissa Garay “Electric Planes Are Coming Sooner Than You Think” Mar 3, 2022 https://www.afar.com/magazine/electric-planes-are-coming-sooner-than-you-think?utm_source=pocket-newtab)
The largest electric plane in the works is Wright Electric’s 186-seat Wright 1, which EasyJet intends to operate as soon as 2030. Wright also announced plans in November for its 100-passenger Wright Spirit, which will retrofit BAe 146 planes (from British aerospace company BAE Systems) with electric batteries.
Apart from the engineering hurdles around batteries, experts see other barriers against the widespread adoption of electric planes. There are stringent and lengthy certification processes with regulators, funding challenges, and an acclimation period for the public to consider the new technology as safe.
There is the issue that electric aviation, targeting smaller planes and shorter routes, won’t ultimately put the kind of dent that’s needed into the industry’s emissions reduction goals.
Transcontinental or even true long-haul operations are still out of scope for the foreseeable future, cleaner emerging energies like sustainable aviation fuels and, further afield, hydrogen power, must be the industry focus for longer routes.
https://www.afar.com/magazine/electric-planes-are-coming-sooner-than-you-think?utm_source=pocket-newtab