humanity is blowing currently, annually, huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. To be more precise: 37 gigatonnes or 37 billion tons. This corresponds to the Emission of 3008 brown coal power plants of the type “Black pump”. If the politically agreed target is to be reached to limit global warming to 1.5 to a maximum of two degrees would have to be of the global CO2 emissions no later than 2050, to Zero; and thereafter negative emissions are necessary to limit global warming – we need to get back CO2 from the atmosphere. Alone with reforestation of forests that will not happen, a large-scale technical solutions.

Interview

IPCC

climate scientists about global warming: “The next ten years are crucial”

so If you want to hold on to the goal, it is the highest railway in for a massive reversal. However, the social and political debate on climate protection is somehow reminiscent of the BREXIT: Some of them want to give up the 1.5-to two-degree goal as unattainable, other to achieve a controlled exit from the carbon regime, and others take a hard Hit. We do Not have the experience to take a mixture of seriousness, terror, painting, and symbolic activism. However, serious and promising efforts to achieve the necessary halving of global emissions before 2030 or 2035, there is little.

And the more dramatic we are writing about the supposed consequences of climate change, the more we stir up Fears, and so shrill, the contributions to the discussion. The member of the German Bundestag Bärbel Höhn tweeted a few days ago “the next few weeks will certain cold Arctic air, our weather. A sign that the Gulf stream effect doesn’t work anymore.” A factual Basis for this contention there is not. And if the German Bundestag member Karl Lauterbach tweet a connection between a Tsunami in Indonesia and the climate change, then you can be actually only the head. Seriously, this is not. However, with the inflationary proliferation of such claims, the good climate argument recognition and support loses.

The moral distance index finger, it seems to me in the climate debate as inappropriate as reality. Not a few in Germany, preaching renunciation of a lot of things, supposedly for the climate’s sake. If we Germans are a good example, so is the logic, then we can move people in the emission-intensive countries to follow us. But if you talk with residents about China, and not just the pronouncements of the governments of reads, not one is quickly convinced that this works. These people want to have improvements in air quality, and otherwise the same or even more amenities than we enjoy them for decades.

the climate crisis is for other purposes

Other exploited my, once again, that symbolic act would lead to school strikes, to a strengthening of morality, so that the world, including finally that of Northern European students know better than political elites in the United States, China, India, Brazil or Nigeria, what is in the interest of the people of their countries.

And finally, there are those who find that limiting the maximum speed would be on German motorways, the “climate crisis”. When considering the extent of the achieved reductions (by the fact that only a fraction of the cars then no longer 180 but 130 km/h), it is clear that this measure for climate protection is ineffective. Rather, it is merely a repetition of an old, unchanged demand from the 1970s and 1980s, however, this time, with the reference to the climate and not on the acid rain and the forest. In other words – there is nothing to do with the climate; but the climate issue is instrumentalised for any other purpose.

What to do? I propose two Changes of societal practice

First of all, we climate scientists have to change us. We need to stop only concern the trivial authorizations of the climate skeptics, and also the horrors of painters and their stupid statements such as the above two Tweets actively. If measures such as a speed limit reduction help is not a relevant contribution to CO2, then we should say that loud and clear. In order not to be misunderstood – there are good reasons for a speed of 130 km on the German highways, fewer accidents or less traffic jams. Climate protection is not one of them.

on The other should change our way of dealing with the Option of technology. Technical intelligence is one of the few resources of our country. And it is also the key lever that we have in Germany, in order to make a significant contribution to climate protection. Because of the world’s 37 gigatons, are responsible for, we merely of 0.8 gigatons, almost nothing. However, we should try technical developments to initiate, make it economically attractive to live free of emissions. So that not only our own of 0.8 gigatons disappear, but elsewhere, the modernisation will be made significant profits in the CO2 balance can be achieved. We could make these new products to open access, if we want to be altruistic.

So – in order to BREXIT return if a controlled phase-out the use of fossil fuels should remain a policy objective, then please be realistic and not romantic Dream about our moral traction attachments or stupid robber guns spread. Climate change, especially its magnitude, take it seriously, and we are not in the invalid small small lose because it will otherwise be a hard impact. But the hard serve to prepare by ongoing adaptation to the risks and their Changes, especially in the third world. If you still die speed will be limited to the highways – please, but then with a real justification, not with the climate.

The Person: The climate researcher and mathematician Hans von Storch is a Professor at the University of Hamburg and Qingdao. He has in various functions in the assessment reports of the IPCC participated, and was involved as a Director of the Institute for coastal research at the Helmholtz Institute Geesthacht instrumental in the compilation of knowledge, reports on climate change in the Metropolitan region of Hamburg and in the Baltic sea region.

star talk

climate researcher in the Interview

“We will have to Extreme customize”

disaster clamor of the climate scientist Daniela Jacob is not. Nevertheless, it calls for a rethink. This is a great opportunity for overdue innovations.

SHARE
Previous articlePlane collides with helicopter – seven people die, including four German
Next articleAnti-Brexit-protests on the Northern Irish border
Teodora Torrendo is an investigative journalist and is a correspondent for European Union. She is based in Zurich in Switzerland and her field of work include covering human rights violations which take place in the various countries in and outside Europe. She also reports about the political situation in European Union. She has worked with some reputed companies in Europe and is currently contributing to USA News as a freelance journalist. As someone who has a Masters’ degree in Human Rights she also delivers lectures on Intercultural Management to students of Human Rights. She is also an authority on the Arab world politics and their diversity.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here