GEOG 3991-Global Climate Change and Regional Impacts Assignment#
4 Thompson Rivers University
_GEOG3991
Reading #1
Climate policy: Ditch the 2°C warming goal
By Victor, D., & Kennel, C. F.
In the article “Ditch the 2°C warming goal”, the authors critically analyze the
effectiveness of recommendations in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report,
specifically the 2°C/2050 goal, which challenges us to keep the earth's temperature
from rising another 2°C before 2050. They describe the framework as widely
accepted and influential, being adopted by nearly all participating governments while
they also criticize it as being “wrong-headed”, meaning optimistic and unrealistic,
citing “heroic assumptions” like equal global cooperation (Victor, D., & Kennel, C. F.
2014).
While there are few citizens who have not heard of this 2°C goal, there are many
who have done nothing to help achieve it. Why is that? Is it because it is perceived
as unrealistic and unachievable by the average person as well as governments? Or
is it because this is an arbitrary goal that was adopted because it sounded good and
at least provided something to work towards (Victor, D., & Kennel, C. F. 2014) and
was basically unachievable from the onset. As a result, our temperature is rising and
so is our hydrocarbon consumption. The authors recommend goals that can be
achieved, measured or controlled directly by governments thus the development of
more reasonable and specific goals such as CO2 reduction or reducing hydrocarbon
consumption would be better suited as goals and ocean temperatures a better
indicator of health(Victor, D., & Kennel, C. F. 2014). The point being that we can’t
take the atmosphere’s temperature everyday to measure progress, but we can
measure reductions or changes in specific actions that will hopefully lead to overall
global temperature reduction.
We have big dreams and grand goals, but nothing effective in place to facilitate our
intent. The authors point out that the technology isn’t there in scale to accomplish the
goal, as we are just beginning to capture CO2, and alternative fuels are also still
evolving into the financially plausible zone. Citing the UNFCCC’s Conference of
Parties in Paris, the authors point out that work needs to be done to evaluate the
financial aspects of these goals, which are considerable hurdles for both developed
and undeveloped countries.
Just like any sales pitch, the customer has to believe in the product. Any claims by
the salesman had better be accurate and realistic or you won’t believe and buy. This
is probably THE largest hurdle, and without science supporting realistic goals,
countries and citizens will have a hard time buying into any plan or goal in earnest.
Citations
, Victor, D., & Kennel, C. F. (2014, October 01). Climate policy: Ditch the 2°C
warming goal. Nature, 514(7520). doi: 10.1038/514030a
Reading #2
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. (2015). Carbon capture and storage.
What is Carbon capture and why does it matter? Carbon capture has been identified
by the IPCC as a critical component in almost every model of emissions
reduction(IPCC, 2014). The essence of CC is to prevent CO2 from getting into the
atmosphere entirely, or to convert it into a usable non-harmful product (Carbon can
be used to make concrete and soap which was surprising to me).These methods are
called Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Capture and utilization
(CCU). The carbon can be in the air, or the output of a process and because there is
less than one percent Carbon in air, the focus of CC is on processes which are far
more concentrated and more economically feasible in terms of recovery per dollar.
Jackie Forrest, senior director of research for ARC Energy Research Institute, said if
carbon capture works, fossil fuels could still be part of that "net-zero" world. It is on
this premise that CC and CCU be thoroughly investigated as an adaptation strategy.
Canada has bought into this movement and has nearly 20% of all facilities worldwide
(less than 20 globally at time of writing). There is serious development globally and
investment is in the billions of dollars. Serious investment is required, as only a small
fraction is currently captured. Canada for example captures about 3 megatonnes a
year while emitting 716 megatonnes (CAPP, 2015). This is not the best use of a
dollar if you are trying to reduce CO2. Planting trees, green energy and emission
reductions are currently cheaper to utilize.
So why are we doing this? The answer is because there are some things that we
cannot do without, and can’t be changed, the author citing air travel, cement and
steel production for example so this is used to offset the CO2 of these activities.
The author notes that not everyone supports this activity, with some claiming it is
wasting valuable and limited resources. I agree this may be used as a tool that
permits continued abuse of the environment, like saying it’s ok to bleed. I have a box
of band aids. This should not be our intent.
If we can remove what we have already emitted, we should, at great cost if
necessary. We must also reduce output to win. It’s not likely we will stop anytime
soon, so CC is a science worth investment.
Citations
● Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). In O. Edenhofer, R.
Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,... J. C. Minx
(Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
4 Thompson Rivers University
_GEOG3991
Reading #1
Climate policy: Ditch the 2°C warming goal
By Victor, D., & Kennel, C. F.
In the article “Ditch the 2°C warming goal”, the authors critically analyze the
effectiveness of recommendations in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report,
specifically the 2°C/2050 goal, which challenges us to keep the earth's temperature
from rising another 2°C before 2050. They describe the framework as widely
accepted and influential, being adopted by nearly all participating governments while
they also criticize it as being “wrong-headed”, meaning optimistic and unrealistic,
citing “heroic assumptions” like equal global cooperation (Victor, D., & Kennel, C. F.
2014).
While there are few citizens who have not heard of this 2°C goal, there are many
who have done nothing to help achieve it. Why is that? Is it because it is perceived
as unrealistic and unachievable by the average person as well as governments? Or
is it because this is an arbitrary goal that was adopted because it sounded good and
at least provided something to work towards (Victor, D., & Kennel, C. F. 2014) and
was basically unachievable from the onset. As a result, our temperature is rising and
so is our hydrocarbon consumption. The authors recommend goals that can be
achieved, measured or controlled directly by governments thus the development of
more reasonable and specific goals such as CO2 reduction or reducing hydrocarbon
consumption would be better suited as goals and ocean temperatures a better
indicator of health(Victor, D., & Kennel, C. F. 2014). The point being that we can’t
take the atmosphere’s temperature everyday to measure progress, but we can
measure reductions or changes in specific actions that will hopefully lead to overall
global temperature reduction.
We have big dreams and grand goals, but nothing effective in place to facilitate our
intent. The authors point out that the technology isn’t there in scale to accomplish the
goal, as we are just beginning to capture CO2, and alternative fuels are also still
evolving into the financially plausible zone. Citing the UNFCCC’s Conference of
Parties in Paris, the authors point out that work needs to be done to evaluate the
financial aspects of these goals, which are considerable hurdles for both developed
and undeveloped countries.
Just like any sales pitch, the customer has to believe in the product. Any claims by
the salesman had better be accurate and realistic or you won’t believe and buy. This
is probably THE largest hurdle, and without science supporting realistic goals,
countries and citizens will have a hard time buying into any plan or goal in earnest.
Citations
, Victor, D., & Kennel, C. F. (2014, October 01). Climate policy: Ditch the 2°C
warming goal. Nature, 514(7520). doi: 10.1038/514030a
Reading #2
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. (2015). Carbon capture and storage.
What is Carbon capture and why does it matter? Carbon capture has been identified
by the IPCC as a critical component in almost every model of emissions
reduction(IPCC, 2014). The essence of CC is to prevent CO2 from getting into the
atmosphere entirely, or to convert it into a usable non-harmful product (Carbon can
be used to make concrete and soap which was surprising to me).These methods are
called Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Capture and utilization
(CCU). The carbon can be in the air, or the output of a process and because there is
less than one percent Carbon in air, the focus of CC is on processes which are far
more concentrated and more economically feasible in terms of recovery per dollar.
Jackie Forrest, senior director of research for ARC Energy Research Institute, said if
carbon capture works, fossil fuels could still be part of that "net-zero" world. It is on
this premise that CC and CCU be thoroughly investigated as an adaptation strategy.
Canada has bought into this movement and has nearly 20% of all facilities worldwide
(less than 20 globally at time of writing). There is serious development globally and
investment is in the billions of dollars. Serious investment is required, as only a small
fraction is currently captured. Canada for example captures about 3 megatonnes a
year while emitting 716 megatonnes (CAPP, 2015). This is not the best use of a
dollar if you are trying to reduce CO2. Planting trees, green energy and emission
reductions are currently cheaper to utilize.
So why are we doing this? The answer is because there are some things that we
cannot do without, and can’t be changed, the author citing air travel, cement and
steel production for example so this is used to offset the CO2 of these activities.
The author notes that not everyone supports this activity, with some claiming it is
wasting valuable and limited resources. I agree this may be used as a tool that
permits continued abuse of the environment, like saying it’s ok to bleed. I have a box
of band aids. This should not be our intent.
If we can remove what we have already emitted, we should, at great cost if
necessary. We must also reduce output to win. It’s not likely we will stop anytime
soon, so CC is a science worth investment.
Citations
● Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). In O. Edenhofer, R.
Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,... J. C. Minx
(Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
