James Hansen: Game Over for the Climate
10. maj 2012
Lederen af NASAs klimaforskningsafdeling James Hansen havde i gårsdagens New York Times et indlæg, hvor han opsummerer, hvorfor det er vitalt at få standset ikke bare Keystone XL-rørledningen og tar sand-udvindingen i Alberta, men som verdenssamfund at komme overens med, hvilke fossile reserver, vi giver plads til at udvinde, og hvilke, vi som ansvarligt verdenssamfund lader ligge i jorden.
For omkring fem år siden udtrykte Hansen det i al sin enkelhed: “Coal is best left in the ground”. Siden har højere oliepriser gjort udvinding af en række unconventional olieforkomster, tar sands og tar shale rentable. Og Hansen har måttet udvide sine anbefaling til, at vi klimatologisk set gjorde bedste i at lade kul og en bred vifte af ukonventionelle olieforekomster blive i jorden. Hvis ikke vi gør det, er det ifølge Hansen “Game over for the climate”.
Det er stærke ord, som vi alle burde lade sive ind, for at handle efter dem.
Men er verdenssamfundet overhovedet i stand til at handle rationelt i forhold til en sådan samlet udfordring? Eller vil vi verden rundt se den kortfristede interesse overvokse det fælles bedste? Siden COP15 synes kul- og olieindustriens lobbyisme og støjproduktion at have taget til i en sådan grad, at man har fået rum for at kunne fortsætte uantastet nogle år endnu. Og hvor vi for fire år siden havde et håb om, at Obama ville løfte USA ind i en omstillingsproces på en måde, så det var med til at vise vejen i verdenssamfundet. Så er det svært at finde næring for samme håb om lederskab på klima-området, selv hvis han bliver valgt for en ny fireårs-periode.
James Hansens opinion i New York Times har jeg tilladt mig at gengive i sin helhed herunder:
.
Game Over for the Climate
James Hansen, New York Times 09.05.2012.
GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”
If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.
Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.
If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.
