This this is breaking news:
States which have agreed to the Paris 2015 agreement, globally commit to keeping the anthropogenic temperature rise well below 2°C and pursue to come as close to a 1.5°C rise as possible. I know, no news yet. But, in order to know which are effective mechanisms and to monitor mitigation, one needs reliable track records which reflect the actual temperature development caused by humans at any given moment.
(Be my guest and get excited right now): Thus, we need a Real Time Global Warming Index! And they have it!
A group of scientists from the University of Oxford and the University of Leeds has published a paper and launched a web page. On it, you can literally watch real-time climate warming caused by humans. Scientists around Haustein et al. (2017) isolate anthropogenic climate warming by taking into account burning of fossil fuels and other human activities as well as natural variability.
If you haven't gotten enough yet, there are a number of other tickers which keep track of greenhouse gases (thriolliontonnes.org by the Oxford University) for instance, or the carbon clock by Bloomberg tracking anthropogenic carbon emissions.
States which have agreed to the Paris 2015 agreement, globally commit to keeping the anthropogenic temperature rise well below 2°C and pursue to come as close to a 1.5°C rise as possible. I know, no news yet. But, in order to know which are effective mechanisms and to monitor mitigation, one needs reliable track records which reflect the actual temperature development caused by humans at any given moment.
(Be my guest and get excited right now): Thus, we need a Real Time Global Warming Index! And they have it!
 |
| Getting hot in here? source: globalwarmingindex.org |
If you haven't gotten enough yet, there are a number of other tickers which keep track of greenhouse gases (thriolliontonnes.org by the Oxford University) for instance, or the carbon clock by Bloomberg tracking anthropogenic carbon emissions.
I looked in which country the mean citizen contributes the most to the global carbon accumulation. Instead of seeing China or the US on the top of that list - it's this: Qatar (here at the Pearl Monument in Doha). Oil-fueled wealth, energy inefficiency and little environmental awareness lead to an exorbitant carbon footprint per capita which is about 2, 5 as much as the average American equivalent. The local climate demands energy-intensive desalination of water and constant air conditioning. Under these conditions, it seems absurd to host the 2022 world cup here. However, by the end of the day - there is only a small number of Qataris in the world, the grand carbon-players are after all - the US and China.
Frightening reality, if you ask me..
ReplyDeleteHi Luisa,
ReplyDeleteIt is great to hear that a Real Time Global Warming Index exists! I agree that in order to monitor mitigation, real time tracking is needed. You mentioned at the end of your post that the grand players in the climate change story are the US and China, and that Qataris only constitute for a small number. I still don't think that because there are fewer Qataris that it justifies their actions; everyone should be treated equally and everyone should endeavour to reduce their carbon footprint. However, as incomes and lifestyles improve in developing countries, do you feel every country's target for reducing their carbon footprint should be the same?
Best wishes,
Anparasan
Hi Anpu, great remark. Yes, I do agree I don't think emissions in this amount can or should be justified by the number of people emitting. I put this in comparison mostly to emphasize the importance to not only look at per capita emission but to take nations as a whole in account. And yes, certainly, a future society has to have a singnificantly lower CO2 footprint than both Qataris and US Americans. Last year for instance, the organizations worldovershoot.org calculated that the earth community had used up the amount of ressources which can be reproduced within on year, by August. The so-called "Earth Overshoot Day" is quite an straight-forward (not too advanced) way of communicating that basic message that most nations will have to reduce their emissions. I don't think highly disadvantaged states can be expected to slow down as easy as others, ideally though global trade sparks green growth (thinking of the classic solar development here). I would be interested in what you think about this! Best, Luisa
Delete