Another day, another arbitrary deadline by which the world community must act to avoid the worst of global warming brought on by mankind’s carbon emissions.
This time, scientists at Beijing’s Tsinghua University, along with colleagues from UC-Irvine and the Laboratory for Sciences of Climate and Environment at Gif-sur-Yvette, near Paris, reckon that, at current emissions levels, humanity has less than 10 years left until our “carbon budget” runs out.
“Carbon budget” is a new term that climate hysterics have trotted out to put a number on their estimate of how much carbon dioxide may be emitted prior to reaching the 1.5° Celsius increase in average global temperature. This is the temperature increase designated by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the point we must stay below to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
From the report: “Assuming that emissions continue at 2021 levels without immediate reduction strategies, these values permit quantification of the timescale at which the remaining CO2 budget might be used, and thus when limits to constrain warming to Paris Agreement levels might be exceeded (at least based on the IPCC remaining CO2 budgets). To stay within only 1.5 °C warming, it is estimated that the remaining CO2 budget might be used within 9.5 ± 0.1 years.”
According to the report, at current emission rates, there’s a 67-percent chance we run out of time to slow emissions by 2031. To maintain even the IPCC’s fallback position of a 2° Celsius rise in temperature, at current emission rates, the “carbon budget” will be used by 2052, according to the report.
To avoid climate disaster, the IPCC has set even more arbitrary goals to cut carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030 and somehow get to net-zero emissions by 2050. Currently, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, China, has only pledged to reach peak output of emissions by 2030. So, there may be just a few flaws in the IPCC’s plan.
According to the report, demand for electricity in China grew by 10 percent in 2021. China’s increase in electricity demand was allegedly the equivalent of Africa’s total demand for electricity. And much of China’s electricity — as much as 60 percent — is still provided by coal, which is considered the worst of the fossil fuels in terms of emissions. And China still has plans to create more coal-fired power plants.
2020, with its lockdowns and government restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, was a banner year for emissions reduction, as they dropped approximately 5.4 percent by most reckonings. Unfortunately, governments can’t keep the entire world locked down forever, and in 2021, greenhouse-gas emissions rebounded with a vengeance.
“Following record-level declines in 2020, near-real-time data indicate that global CO2 emissions rebounded by 4.8% in 2021, reaching 34.9 GtCO2. These 2021 emissions consumed 8.7% of the remaining carbon budget for limiting anthropogenic warming to 1.5 °C, which if current trajectories continue, might be used up in 9.5 years at 67% likelihood,” the study states.
So, this is yet another tipping point in the history of a political movement replete with tipping points. In his 2006 science-fiction film An Inconvenient Truth, carbon-credit salesman Al Gore claimed we only had 10 years to completely change our way of life to prevent climate chaos.
The U.K.’s Prince Charles has given us several tipping points. Back in 2009, the heir to the British throne claimed we had only 100 months in order to save the climate from ruin. So, at that time, according to Royal authority, we had only until 2017 to act. In 2015, the Prince recanted, giving us a 35 year reprieve — until 2050.
Of course, we all remember Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and her 2018 proclamation that the world will end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.
And now another report relays yet another tipping point by which politicians, claiming that they’re following “the science,” can issue yet more tipping points. Now, they have a new term to throw around as well as politicians and a compliant media can begin to complain about the non-existent “carbon budget.”
This rapid-fire release of confusing reports doesn’t seem to be accidental. The entire climate-change movement is about confusing the populace into believing that a serious problem exists that is just too big for anyone but a globalist government to solve — as if such an entity could do anything but create more problems.
The climate-hysteria movement isn’t truly about the climate at all. It’s all about control.
