Are people responsibe for climate change???????

The Impact of People Upon the Planet

 

Changes in the human population, including aging and urbanization, could significantly affect global emissions of carbon dioxide over the next 40 years. 

These findings appear in a paper in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), were recognized by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Their work was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a European Young Investigator's Award, and the Hewlett Foundation. 

"By examining the relationship between population dynamics and greenhouse gas emissions, this groundbreaking research increases our understanding of how human behaviors, decisions and lifestyles will determine the path of future climate change," says Sarah Ruth, program director in NSF's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funds NCAR. 

Three Billion More Urban Dwellers by 2050?

 

By mid-century it is estimated that global population could rise by more than three billion people, with most of that increase occurring in urban areas. 

The study showed that a slowing of that population growth could contribute to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Slowing Population Growth

 

The researchers found that if population follows one of the slower growth paths foreseen as plausible by demographers at the United Nations, by 2050 it could account for 16 to 29 percent of the emission reductions thought necessary to keep global temperatures from causing serious impacts. 

The effect of slower population growth on greenhouse gas emissions would be even larger by the end of the century. 

"If global population growth slows down, it is not going to solve the climate problem, but it can make a contribution, especially in the long term," says the paper's lead author, Brian O'Neill, an NCAR scientist. (source:http://geology.com)

Climate change scientists call for food rationing to reduce carbon emissions

(NaturalNews) Leading scientists have called for World War II-style rationing in First World countries to avert catastrophic global warming, in a series of papers published by the United Kingdom's Royal Society.

"The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face," said Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

The recommendation came after Anderson concluded that no other method could secure the decrease in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions needed to prevent temperatures from rising to dangerous levels.

Without drastic emission cuts, global temperatures are set to rise more than 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2060, producing more severe weather events such as floods and droughts. This will inevitably disrupt food production, leading to massive social unrest and large-scale migration, in addition to mass extinction at a rate surpassing even modern levels.

Anderson noted that the type of rationing needed would be relatively moderate, involving limiting electricity usage, setting a maximum level for home thermostats, and mandating replacement of older appliances with newer, energy efficient devices. Another suggestion was to place limits on food imported from great distances. Adjusting to these limitations would only entail simple lifestyle changes, such as wearing more warm clothing while indoors and taking public transportation more, Anderson noted.

"I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves," he said. "Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then."

In another paper, Myles Allen of Oxford University warned that international climate negotiations are off track by focusing on reducing emissions below a specific baseline (such as 1990 levels), rather than focusing on total emissions.(source:naturalnews.com)

How to reduce climate change effects?

Climate change presents a huge threat to human well being. There are many people wondering why are world leaders doing so little to save us from seeing the worst of climate change. International climate talks are always just talks and nothing else, and such strategy will definitely not be enough to tackle climate change. What we need is an immediate action, and not more talks and false promises.

Many scientists will agree that the best way to tackle climate change is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2 emissions). In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we need to first identify the main cause of these emissions.

The main cause of greenhouse gas emissions is fossil fuels burning. World economy still heavily relies on fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and as long as fossil fuels remain dominant sources of energy we won't have any chance to successfully tackle climate change.

What's the alternative to fossil fuels? The answer is quite simple, namely the renewable energy. If world would to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources this would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that end up in earth's atmosphere, and stop climate change from going totally out of control.

So what's the problem then? Well, besides the fact that some people still do not believe in climate change there is also the problem regarding the reliability of renewable energy, namely renewable energy technologies are still not developed enough to reliably deliver enough power needed to satisfy a global economy.

Renewable energy is also more expensive option compared to fossil fuels, and not many people are willing to pay higher energy bills, because to many people money is still more important than saving our planet from huge environmental catastrophe.

The key to success in tackling climate change is basically in changing the ethical values of our society. World has to stop its blind faith in money because there are things much more important than money like for instance our environment, or in general our planet.

Climate change has the potential to completely destroy our way of life and people should be really asking themselves what's the use in having all the money in the world if you don't have nothing to spend it on?
(Artice from climatechangearicles.blogspot.com)

Efforts against climate change

World is still not putting enough efforts into a fight against climate change. This is not only visible from the fact that world still hasn't agreed upon new climate deal but also because fossil fuels use is still not decreasing which means that carbon emissions still continue to rise on global scale.

World has several different options at its disposal in fight against the climate change but they are of very little use because there is still a big difference in opinion among world leaders about what should be done next. The developed world wants one thing and the developing countries want something else which makes climate talks practically useless.

The most obvious solution to tackle climate change is of course in finding the right mechanism to decrease the further growth of carbon emissions. With fossil fuels satisfying most of global energy demand carbon emissions will continue to grow so what we need here is rapid renewable energy development.


The renewable energy revolution is sadly not being famous for its speed. Renewable energy sources currently satisfy about 13 percent of the world's total energy demand which means that oil, coal and natural gas still rule the world.

Renewable energy sector needs more funds, more researches and more political backup to speed things up. The political backup is often the main stumbling block because of powerful fossil fuel lobbies that have huge control over politics and tend to get major political decisions going their way.

As already said above more fossil fuels will mean more carbon emissions and more carbon emissions will mean higher temperatures. The vast majority of scientists agree that world needs to keep a maximum global average temperature rise of below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) over pre-industrial times if we want to avoid the bad climate change scenario.

The way things are currently going this bad scenario might soon turn out to be the real deal. Even sooner than expected.(article from climatechangearticles.blogspot.com)