Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100

[DonViejo]

Source: The Washington Post



By Juliet Eilperin, Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney
September 28 at 9:00 AM

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.

A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html

[procon]

1. Its a weak argument. All those "very small drops" add up, so doing nothing is worse than

instituting environmentally proactive policies.

[Flaleftist]

2. That's the next talking point I was expecting from the right.

From 'human activity has nothing to do with it' to 'it's too late now so fuck it.'

[ananda]

4. I know. We are knee deep in rightwing insanity now..

.. and it's going to literally destroy all of us.

[NickB79]

3. Minnesota banana farming, here I come

[hatrack]

5. One end of human civilization as now constituted - coming right up!

Gosh, if only there were some way we could have known about this!

If only there were some sort of network of experts able to make accurate predictions about climate in the future!

If only there had been some sort of system for disseminating their predictions and showing how they reached their conclusions!

If only there were a global system of nationally supported groups of such experts who could coordinate their research, and then use it to advise governments and businesses!

. . . Naaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

[DBoon]

8. If only we had a nationally known political figure to lead this effort

[Turbineguy]

6. The good news is

they'll all be dead by then.

[The_jackalope]

7. You don't need to begin as a fascist to come to that conclusion.

I first became aware of the problem of climate change in 1972, when I read "Limits to Growth." In the 46 years that have transpired since then, I have done my best to cut my CO2 emissions and other waste generation. I also did one other thing. I tracked how well the world as a whole was doing, especially compared to the scale of the problem. The answer, of course, was "Not well at all."

Since 1972 the world's population has almost doubled, while our collective CO2 emissions have more than doubled. There has been no decisive action in the face of the most urgent existential threat human civilization and our planet's biosphere have ever faced. Certainly no action commensurate with the scale of the problem.

I began to ask, "Why? Why are humans so irrationally unwilling to do what is obviously necessary for global civilization to survive?"

For a while I flirted with the idea that there was something wrong with human beings themselves. This is a seductive idea to many "doomers", but is easily discredited by pointing to many societies, including a few still in existence, that prospered for very long periods without devastating their environments.

The only other possibility is that there must be some quality inherent to modern civilization that renders us helpless to save ourselves.

A few years of thinking revealed the culprit to be the fact that techno-industrial civilization is built on the model of a thermodynamic heat engine. This means that it is compelled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics to consume ever more raw energy to maintain itself in the face of ongoing material deterioration of it's pre-built infrastructure. If it does not invest in this constantly increasing requirement, it will fall into stasis and inevitably tip over into disintegration (the American highway system is a good example.)

To understand why this is so, consider that it takes energy simply to maintain structures built last year. And it takes more energy to maintain structures built the year before, and even more to maintain those built 5, 10 and 50 years ago. The older that parts of a society's infrastructure become, the more structured energy (i.e. repairs) they must absorb to keep from deteriorating.

And then it takes yet more energy to create new infrastructure to provide for growing populations - infrastructure that itself needs increasingly energy-costly maintenance as it ages. Increasing energy required for maintenance adds to the energy required for a growing population.

It didn't take long for the idea of growth to become central to the worldview of people who live in this civilization. We could no more admit the necessity of allowing our infrastructure to collapse, or for everyone taking a 90% pay cut over a couple of decades than we could agree to the requirement for 80 years of single-parent families.

The concepts are obviously absurd because they violate our world-view so egregiously. As a result they are dismissed out of hand, and either simply denied outright or waved away through torturous "logical" processes.

You don't need to start from a fascist right-wing perspective to end up with the realization that humanity is hooped. All you need at the beginning is an open mind, a bit of science and some grade-school arithmetic.

[Oneironaut]

9. Even a 1C rise would kill billions of people, I believe.

A 4C rise will drastically alter life as we know it if we don’t counteract the effects it causes.

It’s too late. It’s going to happen. All we can do is pray that technology saves us.

[Javaman]

10. my only solace in all of this is...

the repukes will die just as much as Dems will as a result of CC.

[dalton99a]

11. Jesus will save our planet

On the other hand, we must keep heaven packed with fresh souls

[bronxiteforever]

12. K&R. This.is.terrifying.

There is no qanon conspiracy but this low key admission that we are headed for an extinction level event is the real conspiracy. The Koch family and their science hating progeny have further unleashed the fire next time on people living today.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. Link to the draft statement:

NEWS

The Trump Administration Is Certain the Earth Will See a 7-Degree Rise in Temps by 2100

Ryan Felton
Today 10:30am

President Donald Trump has said that climate change is a hoax, (1) but in a 500-page report issued last month, his administration asserted it’s indeed real—so real, in fact, that it foresees a seven degrees Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures by 2100. Still, it seeks to reverse the Obama-era fuel economy standards aimed at averting such this catastrophe, according to The Washington Post. Great.

The unbelievable admission came in an environmental impact statement issued by the Trump administration to justify its proposal to freeze fuel economy standards at levels set in 2020. The plan would be a drastic departure from previous levels set by former President Barack Obama, in an effort to combat climate change.

On the current course we’re on, the report asserts, Earth will warm seven degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. In case you need context on how catastrophic that will be, the Post offers some immediate clarity:

A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

{...} If enacted, the administration’s proposals would give new life to aging coal plants; allow oil and gas operations to release more methane into the atmosphere; and prevent new curbs on greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air-conditioning units. The vehicle rule alone would put 8 billion additional tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this century, more than a year’s worth of total U.S. emissions, according to the government’s own analysis.
....

(1)

Link to tweet

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), July 2018, Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0069

https://www.regulations.gov

[Tursiops]

14. Extinction of most life will occurr well before 2100

[Duppers]

15. The exponential rise of methane release will see to that.

There are DUers who still do not understand urgent and dire consequences of the earth's exploding population and the inevitable destructive consumption of that population.

The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.616 billion in 2018. Predicted to be 11 billion by 2088.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
Humans will be gone before then.

Everything else is trivial in comparison to saving this planet's environment. Yet wingers, even when acknowledging the problem, have this "what the hell, it's already gone, so let's get rich" attitude!
Fuck.



I have one offspring, a 31yo son, so all of this is devastatingly heartbreaking to me. He will see the end.

[meadowlander]

16. Half of that would result in a large-scale environmental holocaust