AuthorTopic: This is sub-categor on Knarf's news channel, "Hot Pursuit of T6thME Spread"  (Read 3299 times)

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32348
    • View Profile
Re: 6th ME - The Sixth Great Extinction Is Underway—and We're to Blame
« Reply #30 on: August 02, 2017, 09:28:16 AM »
"We" are not to blame.  "They" are to blame.

Are YOU BLAME here Knarf, living a simple life as a Buddhist Monk on a small Monastery in MO?

I hate this "we" shit in these articles.  I am not a member of this club.

RE

I think the we is referring to mass of humans that made terrible decisions about our environment. You were a trucker for many years (pollution), and yes I too contributed to the co2 rise. I still do, just not so much as when I was younger. I started doubting the TPTB at 19 when I read the "Pentagon Papers." After that I had jobs supporting corporations that make kitchen cabinets and counter tops. Then I traveled with a band all over the US , we had three cars. I would think that only 1/2 of 1% of modern man has stayed clear of contributing, the rest have.

No doubt we all "contribute".  I certainly do.  But "we" did not make the CHOICES that led us down this road, nor did we ever have CONTROL over what was being done, nor could we ever STOP it once we realized what the problem was.  "WE" are not responsible for this mess.  THEY are responsible, as in the people who had control over the society and made the choices that led us to this point.

RE

In my practice as a Buddhist, there is no dualism such as "me" and "them". We are one species, and that species has some fatal flaws.

That's one of the main reasons I am not a Buddhist.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3276
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: 6th ME - The Sixth Great Extinction Is Underway—and We're to Blame
« Reply #31 on: August 02, 2017, 10:28:06 AM »
"We" are not to blame.  "They" are to blame.

Are YOU BLAME here Knarf, living a simple life as a Buddhist Monk on a small Monastery in MO?

I hate this "we" shit in these articles.  I am not a member of this club.

RE

I think the we is referring to mass of humans that made terrible decisions about our environment. You were a trucker for many years (pollution), and yes I too contributed to the co2 rise. I still do, just not so much as when I was younger. I started doubting the TPTB at 19 when I read the "Pentagon Papers." After that I had jobs supporting corporations that make kitchen cabinets and counter tops. Then I traveled with a band all over the US , we had three cars. I would think that only 1/2 of 1% of modern man has stayed clear of contributing, the rest have.

No doubt we all "contribute".  I certainly do.  But "we" did not make the CHOICES that led us down this road, nor did we ever have CONTROL over what was being done, nor could we ever STOP it once we realized what the problem was.  "WE" are not responsible for this mess.  THEY are responsible, as in the people who had control over the society and made the choices that led us to this point.
When one part of the body (politic) proves to be an existential threat to the whole (for example through its cancerous growth), it IS OUR responsibility to remove it.

Cue the Orkin Man.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline azozeo

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 5853
    • View Profile
T6thME Spread"
« Reply #32 on: August 02, 2017, 11:18:12 AM »
Forget the bug guy. Use a bug zapper on the lot of them.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZtttt ...

If you can't hold the new energies & frequencies it's the bug zapper for you  :evil4:   :emthup:
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
    • View Profile
Human beings are now waging war against life itself as we continue to destroy not just individual lives, local populations and entire species in vast numbers but also the ecological systems that make life on earth possible.

By doing this we are now accelerating the sixth mass extinction event in earth’s history and virtually eliminating any prospect of human survival.

In a recently published scientific study ‘Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines’ the authors Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo document the accelerating nature of this problem.

"Earth’s sixth mass extinction is more severe than perceived when looking exclusively at species extinctions… That conclusion is based on analyses of the numbers and degrees of range contraction… using a sample of 27,600 vertebrate species, and on a more detailed analysis documenting the population extinctions between 1900 and 2015 in 177 mammal species." Their research found that the rate of population loss in terrestrial vertebrates is "extremely high" – even in "species of low concern".

More than 40% of the species had experienced severe population declines.

In their sample, comprising nearly half of known vertebrate species, 32% (8,851 out of 27,600) are decreasing; that is, they have decreased in population size and range. In the 177 mammals for which they had detailed data, all had lost 30% or more of their geographic ranges and more than 40% of the species had experienced severe population declines. Their data revealed that "beyond global species extinctions earth is experiencing a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilisation. We describe this as a 'biological annihilation' to highlight the current magnitude of earth’s ongoing sixth major extinction event."

Illustrating the damage done by dramatically reducing the historic geographic range of a species, consider the lion. Panthera leo "was historically distributed over most of Africa, southern Europe, and the Middle East, all the way to north-western India. It is now confined to scattered populations in sub-Saharan Africa and a remnant population in the Gir forest of India. The vast majority of lion populations are gone."

Why is this happening? Ceballos, Ehrlich and Dirzo tell us: "In the last few decades, habitat loss, overexploitation, invasive organisms, pollution, toxification, and more recently climate disruption, as well as the interactions among these factors, have led to the catastrophic declines in both the numbers and sizes of populations of both common and rare vertebrate species."

The vast majority of lion populations are gone.

Further, however, the authors warn that the true extent of this mass extinction has been "underestimated, because of the emphasis on species extinction." This underestimation can be traced to overlooking the accelerating extinction of local populations of a species.

Population extinctions today are "orders of magnitude more frequent than species extinctions. Population extinctions, however, are a prelude to species extinctions, so earth’s sixth mass extinction episode has proceeded further than most assume." Moreover, and importantly from a narrow human perspective, the massive loss of local populations is already damaging the services ecosystems provide to civilisation (which, of course, are given no value by government and corporate economists).

As Ceballos, Ehrlich and Dirzo remind us: "When considering this frightening assault on the foundations of human civilisation, one must never forget that earth’s capacity to support life, including human life, has been shaped by life itself." When public mention is made of the extinction crisis, it usually focuses on a few (probably iconic) animal species known to have gone extinct, while projecting many more in future. However, a glance at their maps presents a much more realistic picture: as much as 50% of the number of animal individuals that once shared earth with us are already gone, as are billions of populations.

Furthermore, they claim that their analysis is conservative given the increasing trajectories of those factors that drive extinction together with their synergistic impacts. "Future losses easily may amount to a further rapid defaunation of the globe and comparable losses in the diversity of plants, including the local (and eventually global) defaunation-driven coextinction of plants."

Future losses easily may amount to a further rapid defaunation of the globe.

They conclude with the chilling observation: ‘Thus, we emphasize that the sixth mass extinction is already here and the window for effective action is very short.’

Of course, it is too late for those species of plants, birds, animals, fish, amphibians, insects and reptiles that humans have already driven to extinction or will yet drive to extinction in the future. 200 species yesterday. 200 species today. 200 species tomorrow. 200 species the day after. And, as Ceballos, Ehrlich and Dirzo emphasize, the ongoing daily extinctions of myriad local populations.

If you think that the above information is bad enough in assessing the prospects for human survival, you will not be encouraged by awareness or deeper consideration of even some of the many variables adversely impacting our prospects that were beyond the scope of the above study.

While Ceballos, Ehrlich and Dirzo, in addition to the problems noted above, also identified the problems of human overpopulation and continued population growth, as well as overconsumption (based on "the fiction that perpetual growth can occur on a finite planet") and even the risks posed by nuclear war, there were many variables that were beyond the scope of their research.

Ranging from nitrogen deposition to ocean acidification, and including such basics as soil, water, and air; virtually every ecological system upon which life depends is failing.

For example, in a recent discussion of that branch of ecological science known as ‘Planetary Boundary Science’, Dr Glen Barry identified "at least ten global ecological catastrophes which threaten to destroy the global ecological system and portend an end to human beings, and perhaps all life. Ranging from nitrogen deposition to ocean acidification, and including such basics as soil, water, and air; virtually every ecological system upon which life depends is failing".

Moreover, apart from the ongoing human death tolls caused by the endless wars and other military violence being conducted across the planet – see, for example, ‘Yemen cholera worst on record & numbers still rising’ – there is catastrophic environmental damage caused too.

In addition, the out-of-control methane releases into the atmosphere that are now occurring and the release, each and every day, of 300 tons of radioactive waste from Fukushima into the Pacific Ocean are having disastrous consequences that will negatively impact life on earth indefinitely. And they cannot be reversed in any timeframe that is meaningful for human prospects.

Apart from the above, there is a host of other critical issues – such as destruction of the earth’s rainforests, destruction of waterways and the ocean habitat and the devastating impact of animal agriculture on meat consumption – that international governmental organisations such as the UN, national governments and multinational corporations will continue to refuse to decisively act upon because they are controlled by an insane global elite.

So time may be short, the number of issues utterly daunting and the prospects for life grim. But if, like me, you are inclined to fight to the last breath, I invite you to consider making a deliberate choice to take powerful personal action in the fight for our survival. If you do nothing else, consider participating in the fifteen-year strategy of ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’. You can do this as an individual, with family and friends or as a neighbourhood.

If you are involved in (or considering becoming involved in) a local campaign to address a climate issue, end some manifestation of war (or even all war), or to halt any other threat to our environment, I encourage you to consider doing this on a strategic basis. And if you would like to join the worldwide movement to end violence in all of its forms, environmental and otherwise, you are also welcome to consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

We might be annihilating life on earth but this is not something about which we have no choice.

In fact, each and every one of us has a choice: we can choose to do nothing, we can wait for (or even lobby) others to act, or we can take powerful action ourselves. But unless you search your heart and make a conscious and deliberate choice to commit yourself to act powerfully, your unconscious choice will effectively be the first one (including that you might take some token measures and delude yourself that these make a difference). And the annihilation of life on earth will continue, with your complicity.

Extinction beckons. Will you choose powerfully?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/robert-j-burrowes/biological-annihilation-and-sixth-mass-extinction
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
    • View Profile
6thME - Two degrees of warming already baked in 7/31
« Reply #34 on: August 03, 2017, 09:06:51 AM »

Even if all fossil fuel emissions stopped in 2017, warming by 2100 is very likely to reach about 2.3 F.

Even if humans could instantly turn off all our emissions of greenhouse gases, the Earth would continue to heat up about two more degrees Fahrenheit by the turn of the century, according to a sophisticated new analysis published in Nature Climate Change. And if current emissions continue for 15 years, odds are good that the planet will see nearly three degrees (1.5 C) of warming by then.

"This 'committed warming' is critical to understand because it can tell us and policy makers how long we have, at current emission rates, before the planet will warm to certain thresholds," said co-author Robert Pincus, a scientist with CIRES at the University of Colorado Boulder and NOAA's Physical Sciences Division. "The window of opportunity on a 1.5-degree [C] target is closing."

During United Nations meetings in Paris last year, 195 countries including the United States signed an agreement to keep global temperature rise less than 3.5 degrees F (2 C) above pre-industrial levels, and pursue efforts that would limit it further, to less than 3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 C) by 2100.

The new assessment by Pincus and lead author Thorsten Mauritsen, from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology is unique in that it does not rely on computer model simulations, but rather on observations of the climate system to calculate Earth's climate commitment. Their work accounts for the capacity of oceans to absorb carbon, detailed data on the planet's energy imbalance, the climate-relevant behavior of fine particles in the atmosphere, and other factors.

Among Pincus' and Mauritsen's findings:

    Even if all fossil fuel emissions stopped in 2017, warming by 2100 is very likely to reach about 2.3 F (range: 1.6-4.1) or 1.3 degrees C (range: 0.9-2.3).
    Oceans could reduce that figure a bit. Carbon naturally captured and stored in the deep ocean could cut committed warming by 0.4 degrees F (0.2 C).
    There is some risk that warming this century cannot be kept to 1.5 degrees C beyond pre-industrial temperatures. In fact, there is a 13 percent chance we are already committed to 1.5-C warming by 2100.

"Our estimates are based on things that have already happened, things we can observe, and they point to the part of future warming that is already committed to by past emissions," said Mauritsen. "Future carbon dioxide emissions will then add extra warming on top of that commitment."

The research was funded by the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170731114534.htm

HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
    • View Profile
6thME Extinction Event is Under Way - video 17min. 7/31
« Reply #35 on: August 03, 2017, 09:23:42 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/143ivuwYYoM&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/143ivuwYYoM&fs=1</a>
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
    • View Profile
Bankers and celebrities are often on the forefront of climate change discussions. Does that harm, rather than help, the cause?

All signs now point to Donald Trump withdrawing the US from the Paris agreement, the closest thing the international community has to a plan for dealing with climate change.

In the lead-up to this week’s expected decision, the nationalist, Steve Bannon-led wing of the White House has tried to paint climate change – and the agreement, by extension – as a concern of elites.

Headlines on Breitbart over the weekend derided Gary Cohn (“Carbon Tax Cohn”, to some) for trying to change Trump’s mind about pulling out of the deal, complete with a globe emoji alongside the Goldman Sachs veteran’s name – a double entendre for his belief in globalization and global warming.

Real Americans care about reviving the beleaguered coal industry and unleashing the power of America’s natural resources to create jobs, their argument goes. The only people who care about climate change are bankers and celebrities.

The problem is that they aren’t entirely wrong – at least, from looking at headlines.

Billionaires such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio have become some of the most recognizable faces of the fight against climate change for producing high-profile documentaries on the subject and jetting around the world to spread their gospel. Elon Musk – the Tesla CEO now under fire for mistreating his workers – has been celebrated by environmentalists for building electric cars and batteries to store solar power.

Climate change is a frequent topic of conversation at 1% confabs such as the World Economic Forum in Davos, where this year’s 15 sessions on climate featured 60 CEOs. Over the past several weeks, greens such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have touted the fact that corporations including Walmart, BP and Unilever all favor sticking with Paris.

Even JP Morgan Chase head and Trump adviser Jamie Dimon has joined the fold, signing a letter with Musk and business magnates in the Wall Street Journal expressing their “strong support for the United States remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement”.

Especially given the scale of change needed, “believes in climate change” – or in remaining in the Paris agreement, for that matter – is a godawful litmus test for deciding who gets to be called a climate hero. If there is a pragmatic economic case to be made for switching over to renewables and divesting from fossil fuel assets, then elites will chase profits. They don’t need to be lauded for doing so.

Moreover, continuing to praise bankers and billionaires for symbolic statements on climate helps do Bannon and Breitbart’s work for them. In populist times, salvaging any hope for real progress on climate change “post-Paris” – domestically and internationally – will mean making the case for taking on climate change in strictly populist terms.

Luckily, that case practically makes itself. The brand of climate denial that informs Trump and the Republican party line is the result of one of the global elite’s most effective projects yet. It’s been multinational corporations funding the campaign to cast doubt on scientific consensus. ExxonMobil, for instance, has poured at least $33m into such efforts since the Kyoto protocol was launched in 1997. Despite this long-running disinformation campaign, the majority of voters in every state support the United States’ participation in the agreement.

What’s more, any reasonable solution to climate change will require massive amounts of job creation, putting people to work doing everything from installing solar panels to insulating houses to updating the country’s electric grid to nursing and teaching, jobs in two of the country’s already low-carbon sectors.

“If you are genuinely serious about shifting to a low-carbon society within the timeframe we have, then it is an absolute agenda for jobs,” climate scientist Kevin Anderson said earlier this year. “You are guaranteeing full employment for 30 years if we think climate change is a serious issue. If we don’t, we can carry on with structural unemployment.”

Climate policies can improve people’s lives in the here and now while preventing a truly catastrophic end to the 21st century. So don’t chide Trump and the rest of his party for denying climate change when they pull out of the Paris agreement. Chide them for denying millions of Americans the well-paying jobs and stable future they deserve.

The silver lining of the climate crisis is that it may be the United States’ greatest opportunity yet to upend its vastly unequal economy, and kick the executives who engineered both out of power. It’s one of history’s greatest “us v them” scenarios, pitting a handful of oligarchs and profit-hungry fossil fuel CEOs against the rest of humanity. Let’s not let those optics go to waste.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/01/climate-change-impact-on-wealthy-paris-deal
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
    • View Profile
6thME - As the wealthy get wealthier, carbon emissions grow in US states
« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2017, 08:49:43 AM »
Across the U.S., state-level carbon emissions are higher in states where income is more highly concentrated among the wealthiest residents, according to a new study by two Boston College researchers.

On a global level, the connection between national wealth and carbon emissions has been well documented. The study, by sociologists Andrew Jorgenson and Juliet Schor, is the first to link income inequality and carbon emissions within and across the individual U.S. states.

The study found that state-level carbon emissions between 1997 and 2012 were positively associated with the income share of the top 10 percent of a state's population, according to the findings, published online and in the April edition of the journal Ecological Economics.

Using the 2012 state data for carbon emissions, and based on the statistical analysis reported in the research article, a one percent increase in the income share of the top 10 percent of a state's population results in tons of additional carbon emissions, led by:

    1. Texas - 812,325 to 934,174 metric tons
    2. California - 437,035 to 502,590 metric tons
    3. Pennsylvania - 284,980 to 327,728 metric tons
    4. Florida - 269,030 to 309,395 metric tons
    5. Illinois - 261,170 to 300,966 metric tons
    6. Ohio - 260,622 to 299,716 metric tons
    7. Louisiana - 246,618 to 283,611 metric tons
    8. Indiana - 232,886 to 237,819 metric tons
    9. New York - 196,234 to 225,670 metric tons
    10. Michigan - 184,835 to 212,560 metric tons

South Carolina was the median in the analysis, with income share growth adding 89,175 to 102,551 metric tons of carbon emissions in 2012. The District of Columbia saw the lowest growth in carbon emissions at an increase of 3,251 to 3,738 metric tons for each 1 percent increase in wealth.

The findings come as states are increasingly taking the lead in their own environmental protection. California Gov. Jerry Brown recently pledged the state would maintain its broad environmental regulations, regardless of any federal shift toward deregulation.

"We think it is safe to say, in terms of environmental policy and action, it is going to be much more active at the state level than the federal level," said Jorgenson, a professor of sociology and environmental studies. "Given the uncertainty of the regulatory environment at the federal level, states like California are saying they will not move away from their policies even if the federal agenda on climate change makes a 180-degree turn from the prior administration."

Spending power drives carbon-intensive consumerism. But so do the political clout and economic power of the wealthiest individuals, according to Jorgenson and Schor, whose analysis with co-author and BC graduate student Xiaorui Huang employed established economic models that assess the political and economic influence of individual wealth on society.

"First, income concentration leads to concentrated political power and the ability to prevent regulations on carbon emissions," said Schor, a professor of sociology. "Second, high income consumers are disproportionate carbon polluters."

The researchers tested the influence of a well-established statistical measure of income inequality, known as the Gini coefficient. That analytical tool reports inequality in a general sense, but doesn't show where inequality exists, said Jorgenson. So the researchers turned to a measure that captures the top 10 percent of a state's population.

"What we find here in the context of income inequality and carbon emissions is that it's about the concentration of income at the top of the distribution," said Jorgenson. "In our statistical models, where the Gini coefficient is non-significant, across the board the wealth of the top 10 percent is. That tells us that it really is about income concentration at the top end of the distribution."

In addition to income, the analysis weighed additional factors - some already well-established as contributors to carbon emissions - such as population size, per capita gross domestic product, urbanization, manufacturing as a percentage of state GDP, fossil fuels production, and the level of state's commitments to environmental regulation.

The researchers drew from a broad array of sources, including statistics from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the League of Conservation Voters, and databases including the U.S. State-Level Income Inequality Database at Sam Houston State University and the internationally supported World Wealth and Income Database.

In addition to advancing the understanding of the factors that force changes in the climate, Jorgenson said the findings contribute to a more expansive view of the harmful effects of income inequality, which has been shown to foster poor outcomes in measures such as health and well being.

"Equalizing incomes has all kinds of potential benefits," Jorgenson said. "This suggests a holistic view of sustainability, equalizing income distribution within the U.S. can have social and environmental benefits. And they can have a global benefit too, since the U.S. is such a significant contributor to climate change."

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-money-wealthy-wealthier-carbon-emissions.html
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
    • View Profile
6thME - Running on Empty
« Reply #38 on: August 04, 2017, 01:13:30 PM »
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32348
    • View Profile
Re: 6thME - Running on Empty
« Reply #39 on: August 04, 2017, 01:41:41 PM »


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pu-nLBevYAE" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Pu-nLBevYAE</a>

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
    • View Profile
6thME - Cold Spring new album "Extinction" (CSR219CD)
« Reply #40 on: August 05, 2017, 09:06:16 AM »


https://coldspring.bandcamp.com/album/extinction-csr219cd
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
    • View Profile
6thME - Study reveals Earth to warm over 2 degrees by 2100 8/5/2017
« Reply #41 on: August 05, 2017, 09:12:59 AM »


By the end of this century, world temperatures are likely to rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius, a study revealed on Monday.

The temperatures will increase before 2100 by 2 to 4.9 degrees Celsius with a 90% chance. Only 5% chance indicates warming could be at or below 2 degrees Celsius, one of the many targets Paris Agreement is tackling, the study published in Nature Climate Change shows.

Adrian Raftery, the lead author of the study and a professor at the University of Washington, said failing the target would have dramatic consequences on people's livelihoods.

"Countries need to change the economic incentives for producing carbon – for example by introducing a carbon tax – and encourage innovation that would improve energy efficiency."

Adrian Raftery,  lead author of 'Less than 2 °Celsius warming by 2100 unlikely' via Reuters

That is putting 350 million people in 31 countries and regions in danger of deadly heat waves and other health hazard. Weather-related disasters, such as drought, heat wave and rising sea levels, are expected to cause 152,000 deaths annually in Europe between 2071 and 2100, jumping from 3,000 a year between 1981 and 2010, CNN reported.

The number of expected death is 50 times larger than at present, the study in the Lancet Planetary Health journal said. It added that heatwaves would lead to 99 percent of all weather-related deaths.

According to the UN Environment Program, 12 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions should be cut from the current 54 billion annually, mainly from fossil fuels burning, to keep the rise below 2 Celsius.

Ramping up efforts to improve carbon efficiency are key to limit future warming, Raftery told Reuters.

"Countries need to change the economic incentives for producing carbon – for example by introducing a carbon tax – and encourage innovation that would improve energy efficiency," he said. "We should be learning more from countries that are particularly carbon-efficient, like France, which has a very low-carbon transport infrastructure."

Another study published on Nature Climate Change in June suggested outperforming Paris Agreement would not stop half of the world's population being exposed to fatal heat waves.

"Even if we outperform the Paris targets, the population exposed to deadly heat will be about 50% by 2100."

 Camilo Mora, lead author of 'Global risk of deadly heat'

"Many people around the world are already paying the ultimate price of heat waves, and while models suggest that this is likely to continue, it could be much worse if emissions are not considerably reduced,” said Camilo Mora, lead author of the study and a biogeography professer at University of Hawaii.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d596a4d7a45544e/share_p.html

HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
2062 Views
Last post December 18, 2014, 02:05:03 PM
by Petty Tyrant
7 Replies
873 Views
Last post October 25, 2017, 12:55:42 PM
by knarf
0 Replies
192 Views
Last post July 14, 2017, 06:48:21 PM
by Palloy2