As this hottest-on-record,
godforsaken decade draws to a close, it’s clear that global warming is
no longer a problem for future generations but one that’s already
displacing communities, costing billions, and driving mass extinctions.
And it’s worth asking: Where did the past 10 years get us?The seven charts below begin to hint at an answer to that question.
Some of the changes they document, like the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere and the number of billion dollar disasters
that occur each year, illustrate how little we did to reduce emissions
and how unprepared the world is to deal with the warming we’ve already
locked in. Even though more people believe in human-caused climate
change now than 10 years ago, a growing chasm in political partisanship
makes it more difficult than ever for Congress to pass climate
legislation.
But by other measures, we might one day look back on the 2010s as a
turning point in our civilization’s approach to climate change. The
growth of renewable energy and rapid retirement of coal-burning power
plants this decade illustrate that crucial changes to the world order
are currently well underway.
1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by about 25 parts per million.
Clayton Aldern / Grist
Let’s start with the big picture, which is to say: the bad news. The
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not only continued
to rise over the past 10 years, but it is also now rising at a faster
rate than ever before.In 2013, the famous atmospheric carbon monitoring station on Mauna
Loa, first installed by Charles David Keeling in 1958, measured levels
above 400 parts per million for the first time ever. By 2016, that number became the annual low.
The earth’s atmosphere has not contained this much carbon dioxide in
millions of years — since before Homo sapiens walked the earth. And
unless we find some way to suck carbon out of the atmosphere, the
Keeling curve will not dip below 400 parts per million again in your
lifetime, your children’s lifetime, or their children’s lifetime,
because carbon dioxide can hang around in the atmosphere for hundreds of
years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that in
order to limit planetary warming to 1.5 degrees, we can’t let
atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise above 430 parts per million. Based on current trends, we only have about another 10 years left to transform our energy system before we blow right past that number as well.
2. Climate change got expensive.
Clayton Aldern / Grist
One of the best-established consequences of global warming is that it
makes natural disasters, like fires and floods, more frequent and
severe. In the 2010s, the costs of this consequence came into sharp
focus as billion-dollar disasters struck the United States again and
again. Hurricanes Irene and Sandy pummeled the Northeast, Maria forever changed Puerto Rico, Florence shook up North Carolina, and Harvey drowned Houston, Texas just weeks before Irma sank Florida. Super Typhoon Yutu, the worst storm to hit U.S. soil since 1935, wreaked havoc on the northern Mariana Islands in the Philippines. There was recordflooding in the Midwest and Californians were struck by some of the largest and most destructive fires the Golden State has ever seen.If there’s an upside to any of this, it’s that these storms disrupted
the status quo. The massive expense, destruction, and displacement they
brought may be prompting people to question why these storms seem worse
than ever before, to consider moving to higher ground (or to Buffalo), or to demand adaptation and mitigation measures in their hometowns.
3. More people accept the basic premises that it’s getting hot and that it’s our fault.
Clayton Aldern / Grist
When it comes to climate change, there’s plenty to argue about. Should we open new nuclear plants? Would a carbon tax work? Does cap and trade
have a net benefit? But if there are two things that nobody should be
arguing about, they’re the facts that the planet is getting hotter, and
that it’s because of human activity.Among scientists, that score was settled a long time ago. But for
some reason, the average Joe has taken a lot longer to come around to
the idea … some reason that probably has a lot to do with the billions
of dollars spent by fossil fuel companies to seedskepticism about the science of climate change and then muddy the waters
around what we should do about it. There will always be skeptics and
conspiracy theorists, but this decade, we’ve seen more and more
Americans come to accept the basics of climate science, which could
translate into more political will to take action in the 2020s.
4. But there’s a widening partisan divide when it comes to worrying about the environment.
Clayton Aldern / Grist
In 2008, Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich sat on a couch together and proclaimed, “Our country must take action to address climate change.” Three years later, Gingrich would write off the bipartisan television spot as “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years.” What happened?The short answer is: polarization. As audiences siloed themselves
away in fortified partisan media towers and conservatives balked at the
theoretical price tag of climate action — or came to see the climate
movement as a liberal ploy to usher in an era of big government — this
decade saw the twisting of environmentalism writ large into a
dramatically polarizing issue. Today, one’s environmental positions in
the United States are nearly as predictive of political party
affiliation as one’s views on gun control and race.
With a new decade before us, a U.S. presidential election on the
horizon, and ever-increasing urgency to act on climate change, the
current hyperpolarization of the issue promises to prove a challenge to
the collective action we’ll need.
5. Coal continued its death spiral.
Clayton Aldern / Grist
Even though there was no slowing of the Keeling curve’s relentless
climb this decade, the mix of sources producing all of that atmospheric
carbon on the ground changed quite a bit. Coal-fired power plants,
easily the most polluting and carbon-intensive source of energy at our
disposal, saw a major decline this decade. From 2000 to 2009, the total
generating capacity of coal-fired power plants taken offline in the
United States was 6 gigawatts. From 2010 to 2019, that number jumped to
80 gigawatts — enough to power about 43 million homes.Coal’s downfall is complicated, owing more to the fracking boom and
the rise of a cheap alternative in natural gas than to environmental
regulations or clean energy policy. In 2016, natural gas surpassed coal as the number one source of electricity generation in the U.S. for the first time. Burning natural gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal, but those gains are diminished by the unknown quantity of methane leaking from other parts of the natural gas lifecycle.
Coal’s downward trend was not just a U.S. phenomenon. This year coal was on track
to see its biggest decline yet around the world. But again, it’s
complicated. Other recent reports have found that coal’s death spiral
may in fact look more like an arrow pointing to Asia.
Coal capacity in China and India grew over the past 10 years. The
decisions these two countries make about their energy mix in the next
decade will determine how much we are able to limit overall warming.
6. Solar skyrocketed, but fossil fuels still dominate.
Clayton Aldern / Grist
Despite coal’s rapid decline, fossil fuels continued to make up the
vast majority of the U.S.’s energy mix this decade. But even though
renewables didn’t make much of a dent in the overall energy mix — they
still only made up about 11 percent
of primary energy production in 2018 — a shift is clearly underway.
Solar energy production increased by about 900 percent between 2010 and
2018, illustrating in stark terms the expansion of the U.S. solar
industry. This figure is only expected to grow as analysts tabulate the
end-of-decade values. Wind energy production, too, is estimated to have
tripled since 2010.Keep in mind that only about 38 percent of the total raw energy
produced ends up feeding into the electric grid — the rest goes to other
uses. In 2018, for example, about 70 percent of primary petroleum
energy was used
in the transportation sector, where it accounted for more than 90
percent of the sector’s energy consumption. Only about 1 percent of
primary energy used in the electric power sector comes from oil. Nuclear
power, on the other hand, exists wholly for the purpose of electricity
generation. The country’s energy mix is a reminder that decarbonization
means more than just greening our electric grid.
7. While coal flatlined, the price of renewables dropped precipitously.
Clayton Aldern / Grist
Natural gas wasn’t the only energy source that got cheaper this
decade. Renewables also became more competitive on price. The cost of
installing photovoltaic panels, whether for a rooftop array or a
commercial-scale solar farm, dropped
by about $5 per kilowatt since 2010. That’s thanks in part to the 30
percent federal solar investment tax credit (which is set to begin phasing out soon) but also to the slew of cities and states around the country that have passed renewable energy goals and created their own incentives.As solar panels became cheaper and more efficient, Americans on both sides of the aisle furiously added them to their roofs, local governments set them up along the side of the highway, and farmers put them out to pasture.
Solar panels still only make up a paltry 1.4 percent of our total
electricity generation mix. But if wind and solar continue at their
current rate of growth, the U.S. has a shot at 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions Myron Ebell , Steven J. Milloy • September 18, 2019 Thanks go to Tony Heller, who first collected many of these news clips and posted them on RealClimateScience . SUMMARY Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science. More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited. 1967: ‘Dire famine by 1975...
Giant 'Rivers' That Flow Through The Sky Mapped For First Time Environment 26 February 2024 By Tessa Koumoundouros Atmospheric rivers, filaments of intense moisture transport in the atmosphere, can now be automatically detected in satellite observations. (NOAA) Rivers of intense moisture wend their way through our atmosphere just as their liquid counterparts do across the land. Unfortunately the sky streams are much harder for us to see. Often a product of cyclones, atmospheric rivers can dictate where intense rain will fall , making their lack of visibility a problem. Understanding them grows increasingly important as our warming atmosphere soaks up even greater amounts of water, forcing these aerial waterways to change course . Until now, researchers relied on computer modeling to predict where this water vapor likely flows, but researchers have now devised a way for us to spy on them in real time. The missing piece of the puzzle was a 3D windscape....
Comments
Post a Comment