Huge risk if global warming passes 1.5C, warns landmark UN report

As you read this, consider the Republican/Conservative plan on climate change is the same one brought forward by Harper in his disastrous term.  This “plan” allows for corporations to transfer large amounts of money across borders while taking tax deductions on both ends.  The Conservative plan is an outright ineffective scam and any difference needed in money will come out of the pockets of individuals.

Huge risk if global warming passes 1.5C, warns landmark UN report
Urgent changes needed to cut risk of extreme heat, drought, floods and poverty, says IPCC
• IPCC climate change report – live updates and reaction
Jonathan Watts Global environment editor
Mon 8 Oct 2018 02.00 BST Last modified on Mon 8 Oct 2018 05.14 BST
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email
Shares
2,482
2482

A firefighter battles a fire in California. The world is currently 1C warmer than preindustrial levels. Photograph: Ringo HW Chiu/AP
The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.
The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on Monday say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Attendees take a photo before the opening of the 48th session of the IPCC in Incheon. Photograph: Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images
The half-degree difference could also prevent corals from being completely eradicated and ease pressure on the Arctic, according to the 1.5C study, which was launched after approval at a final plenary of all 195 countries in Incheon in South Korea that saw delegates hugging one another, with some in tears.

Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet’s most important stories
Read more
“It’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now,” said Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the working group on impacts. “This is the largest clarion bell from the science community and I hope it mobilises people and dents the mood of complacency.”
Policymakers commissioned the report at the Paris climate talks in 2016, but since then the gap between science and politics has widened. Donald Trump has promised to withdraw the US – the world’s biggest source of historical emissions – from the accord. The first round of Brazil’s presidential election on Sunday put Jair Bolsonaro into a strong position to carry out his threat to do the same and also open the Amazon rainforest to agribusiness.
The world is currently 1C warmer than preindustrial levels. Following devastating hurricanes in the US, record droughts in Cape Town and forest fires in the Arctic, the IPCC makes clear that climate change is already happening, upgraded its risk warning from previous reports, and warned that every fraction of additional warming would worsen the impact.
Scientists who reviewed the 6,000 works referenced in the report, said the change caused by just half a degree came as a revelation. “We can see there is a difference and it’s substantial,” Roberts said.
We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero or face more floods
Nicholas Stern
Read more
At 1.5C the proportion of the global population exposed to water stress could be 50% lower than at 2C, it notes. Food scarcity would be less of a problem and hundreds of millions fewer people, particularly in poor countries, would be at risk of climate-related poverty.
At 2C extremely hot days, such as those experienced in the northern hemisphere this summer, would become more severe and common, increasing heat-related deaths and causing more forest fires.
Advertisement
But the greatest difference would be to nature. Insects, which are vital for pollination of crops, and plants are almost twice as likely to lose half their habitat at 2C compared with 1.5C. Corals would be 99% lost at the higher of the two temperatures, but more than 10% have a chance of surviving if the lower target is reached.
Sea-level rise would affect 10 million more people by 2100 if the half-degree extra warming brought a forecast 10cm additional pressure on coastlines. The number affected would increase substantially in the following centuries due to locked-in ice melt.
Oceans are already suffering from elevated acidity and lower levels of oxygen as a result of climate change. One model shows marine fisheries would lose 3m tonnes at 2C, twice the decline at 1.5C.
Sea ice-free summers in the Arctic, which is warming two to three times fast than the world average, would come once every 100 years at 1.5C, but every 10 years with half a degree more of global warming.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest
A nearly ice-free Northwest Passage in the Arctic in August 2016. Photograph: VIIRS/Suomi NPP/Nasa
Time and carbon budgets are running out. By mid-century, a shift to the lower goal would require a supercharged roll-back of emissions sources that have built up over the past 250 years.
The IPCC maps out four pathways to achieve 1.5C, with different combinations of land use and technological change. Reforestation is essential to all of them as are shifts to electric transport systems and greater adoption of carbon capture technology.
Carbon pollution would have to be cut by 45% by 2030 – compared with a 20% cut under the 2C pathway – and come down to zero by 2050, compared with 2075 for 2C. This would require carbon prices that are three to four times higher than for a 2C target. But the costs of doing nothing would be far higher.
The final tick box is political will
Jim Skea
“We have presented governments with pretty hard choices. We have pointed out the enormous benefits of keeping to 1.5C, and also the unprecedented shift in energy systems and transport that would be needed to achieve that,” said Jim Skea, a co-chair of the working group on mitigation. “We show it can be done within laws of physics and chemistry. Then the final tick box is political will. We cannot answer that. Only our audience can – and that is the governments that receive it.”
He said the main finding of his group was the need for urgency. Although unexpectedly good progress has been made in the adoption of renewable energy, deforestation for agriculture was turning a natural carbon sink into a source of emissions. Carbon capture and storage projects, which are essential for reducing emissions in the concrete and waste disposal industries, have also ground to a halt.
Reversing these trends is essential if the world has any chance of reaching 1.5C without relying on the untried technology of solar radiation modification and other forms of geo-engineering, which the IPCC says may not work and could have negative consequences.
In the run-up to the final week of negotiations, there were fears the text of the report would be watered down by the US, Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries that are reluctant to consider more ambitious cuts. The authors said nothing of substance was cut from a text.
Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said the final document was “incredibly conservative” because it did not mention the likely rise in climate-driven refugees or the danger of tipping points that could push the world on to an irreversible path of extreme warming.
The report will be presented to governments at the UN climate conference in Poland at the end of this year. But analysts say there is much work to be done, with even pro-Paris deal nations involved in fossil fuel extraction that runs against the spirit of their commitments. Britain is pushing ahead with gas fracking, Norway with oil exploration in the Arctic, and the German government wants to tear down Hambach forest to dig for coal.
At the current level of commitments, the world is on course for a disastrous 3C of warming. The report authors are refuseing to accept defeat, believing the increasingly visible damage caused by climate change will shift opinion their way.
“I hope this can change the world,” said Jiang Kejun of China’s semi-governmental Energy Research Institute, who is one of the authors. “Two years ago, even I didn’t believe 1.5C was possible but when I look at the options I have confidence it can be done. I want to use this report to do something big in China.”
The timing was good, he said, because the Chinese government was drawing up a long-term plan for 2050 and there was more awareness among the population about the problem of rising temperatures. “People in Beijing have never experienced so many hot days as this summer. It’s made them talk more about climate change.”
Regardless of the US and Brazil, he said, China, Europe and major cities could push ahead. “We can set an example and show what can be done. This is more about technology than politics.”
James Hansen, the former Nasa scientist who helped raised the alarm about climate change, said both 1.5C and 2C would take humanity into uncharted and dangerous territory because they were both well above the Holocene-era range in which human civilisation developed. But he said there was a huge difference between the two: “1.5C gives young people and the next generation a fighting chance of getting back to the Holocene or close to it. That is probably necessary if we want to keep shorelines where they are and preserve our coastal cities.”
Johan Rockström, a co-author of the recent Hothouse Earth report, said scientists never previously discussed 1.5C, which was initially seen as a political concession to small island states. But he said opinion had shifted in the past few years along with growing evidence of climate instability and the approach of tipping points that might push the world off a course that could be controlled by emissions reductions.
“Climate change is occurring earlier and more rapidly than expected. Even at the current level of 1C warming, it is painful,” he told the Guardian. “This report is really important. It has a scientific robustness that shows 1.5C is not just a political concession. There is a growing recognition that 2C is dangerous

From <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report?utm_term=R3VhcmRpYW4gVG9kYXkgVUstMTgxMDA4&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&CMP=GTUK_email

A new threat to Canada

The Conservatives were elected to PQ because Bell Media who also controls the PQ press, would not allow posts that were contrary to the PC.   Meanwhile, the new Conservative PQ government in PQ is making the most of the news the Conservatives are looking for 6 provinces to change the Canadian constitution.

Ford in Ontario is trashing French for the sole purpose of putting though Red Neck legislation to disrupt Canada and put forward the more popular changes to Consitution.  Likewise the new Conservative Government in PQ!

Canadian Political History

The Liberals built Canada with little interruption to their base until 1919 to 1937 in which case the American Republicans working through the Morman Church, helped them establish “The United Farmers of Alberta”  This party morphed itself into the Veterans and Active force, 1944 to 1948, again the US Republicans were fully involved.

This morphed into the Conservatives which found a hard landing after
Diefenbaker and the Avro-Arrow. (You now know the reason Diefenbaker scrapped the Arrow in Canada allowing the US to take up the design and ordered the only prototype of the Aero destroyed.) and, Harper sold off the Canadian Wheat Board to US interest in leaving office.  Related:


They again morphed into the Progressive Conservatives. This party was started by Peter Lougheed and company.  Peter broke away from the Republicans, in fact, took on US oil interests in Alberta in the much-maligned NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM.  Peter became the most popular Premier not only of Alberta but, all of Canada. A time of no internet, those with the money ruled the press.  A world recession stepped in and interest rates went to 25%.  Families invested in oil lost homes and there were a number of suicides  With no internet, those with the money ruled the press!  This was all blamed onto The NEP which was destroyed!

When Klein took over, he doubled down with the US Republicans.  All this happening while the Wild Rose Party kept the original foundation going with the church.  Now we had two political parties which could appear as opposition, one extreme and one tame by comparison.  Doing what they do best, played both ends against the middle. Most of the supportive online support for the Conservatives comes from the small army of trolls put out by the Mormon church.

Notably, Klein started the bleed on the Heritage Savings and Trust by freezing the fund at 5% profit taking all above into General Revenue to support his 10%flat tax.  The loss to Albertans 760 billion dollars most of which went directly back to US parent companies. Norway over the same period banked over 1 trillion dollars with only one-half the production of Alberta!

In a final analysis, I see the US is in a position to take over our country!  By putting in a Conservative Government again will facilitate the end of our Dairy Marketing board and any other institutions that may hinder this process.

  Copy and email to a friend.

Canadian Business

This is a critical time for Canadian Business!  You have centered your pollical thinking on which party promises the best plan for growth coupled with which party will give you the best tax deal.

All these ideals have merit but you look over the fact the Conservatives have kept Canadians on the string as haulers of water and hewers of wood for all of your lifetime!

If you finance them again you will be on track to repeat our past! It is no accident Scheer’s cure for everything is “give them what they want” when dealing with the US.

Soon enough we will be facing bulk water export to the US.  Targeted is the Mighty Peace River.  There is a fully engineered plan called “the Weaterford Project” after the engineering company.   This is to move 2/3rds of the flow of the Peace River to Southern Alberta and the US!  This is what the BC dam is all about; a sump to draw the water from.  At 1100 MW it cannot pay for it’s self.

If the Conservatives build this, Canadians will pay for the pipeline and the US will get really cheap water.  Our overhead will go up and theirs, down.

The point is, there is no saving for you voting Conservative.  You have lost access to the world trade, we are now rebuilding after the Harper-Kenny fiasco.  Your opportunities for business will shrink.

Harper brought in Bell Media to control our IP and printed news.  They used this to curtail any negative comment in the east about the Conservatives and, this may well result in the eastern Conservatives seats being set aside until a fresh, open vote can be taken.

How Canadian and American politic is intertwined.

Here is a detailed youtube link that is nothing short of excellent.

The Mitt Romney mentioned at one point in it is financed by Millions of dollars donated from the LDS (Mormon) church.  Hence, the connection to the LDS to the Conservative/Republican movement in Canada.

This video details the policies of the US Republican policies and thrust that is so apparent in Watching Ford and the Quebec Conservative Governments.

Although it is about the US specifically you will see clearly in it the Conservative policy as pushed by the LDS church.

This site has over 6000 watches.  It is a discussion on her book

“Democracy in Chains” also on the best sellers list.

A new threat to Canada by the Conservatives.

Blog Follower

The Conservatives were elected in PQ because Bell Media blocked negative comments about the Conservatives on all the press in that province.  The Bell Media controls the printed press over most of Canada thanks to Stephen Harper.  Likewise #New Brunswick, @New Foundland and @Labrador.

Busted on their intent to rewrite the Constitution if they get 6 provinces, they are running out the items of change that will be popular to the Red Neck, uneducated part of our society.  iPolitic covers most of these.

The New Conservative Government in Quebec, can’t be seen as curbing French bilingualism in  Canada.  So, he has done the next best thing, saying French should be compulsory on all immigration into Canada.

This will further isolate PQ and foster lament throughout Canada!

Ford in Ontario is trashing the French language support,  something that will play well to the red neck of our population most of which…

View original post 164 more words

A new threat to Canada by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives were elected in PQ because Bell Media blocked negative comments about the Conservatives on all the press in that province.  The Bell Media controls the printed press over most of Canada thanks to Stephen Harper.  Likewise #New Brunswick, @New Foundland and @Labrador.

Busted on their intent to rewrite the Constitution if they get 6 provinces, they are running out the items of change that will be popular to the Red Neck, uneducated part of our society.  iPolitic covers most of these.

The New Conservative Government in Quebec, can’t be seen as curbing French bilingualism in  Canada.  So, he has done the next best thing, saying French should be compulsory on all immigration into Canada.

This will further isolate PQ and foster lament throughout Canada!

Ford in Ontario is trashing the French language support,  something that will play well to the red neck of our population most of which are located in Southern Alberta in the LDS realm.

Another thing they have identified they want to do away with (High on the Republican wish list) is our system of transfer payments.  PQ Conservatives have said they want to wean PQ off of it, which will play well for the uneducated throughout our country.

The Wild Rose Party initiated itself in the Province by alluding to a large fund in Alberta that was transferred to Ottawa every year.  There are no such things.  The transfer payments are funded out of the Federal Tax portion of our present taxes and, Alberta has collected from this fund from conception until 1953. It wasn’t called transfer payments, something the WRP took advantage of.

And, don’t forget all this turmoil and attempts to take over Canada’s resource, leaving the people behind, is in the camp of the LDS (Mormon)church, the authors, in southern Alberta.

And, have more money than most countries while supporting the Republican and Conservative parties.

The Americans have us boxed in! TIME FOR GLOVES OFF!

The short version:

The US is self-sufficient in oil. It doesn’t need Canada’s oil and more importantly, it does not want Canada shipping into what they consider their marketplace with what they again consider their product.  Meanwhile, we allow them to take our bottom priced oil and ship it onward through their refineries.

On the supply end, they have changed the price structure to a starvation price.  Better the oil be left in the ground.  On the West Coast where we need to get to tidewater shipping, US organizations are financing the environmental groups and have the full support of the Republican northern chapter, the Conservative Party. Add to this 530,000 bbls a day out of Valdez Alaska which environmentalists are okay with.

I will suggest we change our national anthem back to “Our true land, strong and free” away from the Americanized “Our true north, strong and free.”

The Mechanics:

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a far corner of North Dakota, just a few hundred miles from the proposed path of the Keystone XL pipeline, 84,000 barrels of crude oil per day recently began flowing through a new line that connects the state’s sprawling oilfields to an oil hub in Wyoming.
In West Texas, engineers activated a new pipeline that cuts diagonally across the state to deliver crude from the oil-rich Permian Basin to refineries near Houston. And in a string of towns in Kansas, Iowa and South Dakota, local government officials are scrutinizing the path of pipeline extensions that would pass nearby.
While the Keystone project awaits a final decision, scenes like these are unfolding almost every week in lesser-known developments that have quietly added more than 11,600 miles of pipeline to the nation’s domestic oil network.
Overall, the network has increased by almost a quarter in the last decade. And the work dwarfs Keystone. About 3.3 million barrels per day of capacity have been added since 2012 alone — five times more oil than the Canada-to-Texas Keystone line could carry if it’s ever built.

The pipeline build-out provides a little-noticed counterpoint to the fierce political battle being waged over the 1,179-mile TransCanada project, which is still in limbo seven years after it was proposed. During the long wait for Keystone, the petroleum industry has pushed relentlessly everywhere else to get oil to market more efficiently, and its adversaries have been unable to stop other major pipelines.
“There’s been a lot of growth — we’re really positive on it in general,” said Rob DeSai, an equity analyst with Edward Jones who focuses on the energy industry. “The oil that’s being produced in the U.S., in many cases, it’s basically in the middle of nowhere. You need new infrastructure to get that oil to market.”
Environmental groups have fought Keystone by citing the risk of leaks and the climate-change consequences of fossil fuels. They hope to make cleaner energy options more appealing. Their success has inspired local protest groups to challenge more projects.
But those efforts, while slowing a few pipelines, have not stopped any because the regulatory path is smoother when a pipeline does not cross an international border, as Keystone would.

But those efforts, while slowing a few pipelines, have not stopped any because the regulatory path is smoother when a pipeline does not cross an international border, as Keystone would.
In Minnesota, local opponents succeeded last year in getting state regulators to consider rerouting a 616-mile pipeline proposed by Toronto-based Enbridge around pristine lakes and forests, delaying it for at least a year.
More typical, though, was an Enbridge project to double the capacity of a 285-mile stretch of pipeline in Michigan. Groups like the Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands fought the proposal, citing a spill in 2010 that caused serious environmental damage. But the Michigan Public Service Commission ruled the project acceptable, and the expansion went ahead.
In Texas, Magellan’s BridgeTex Pipeline, designed to take up to 300,000 barrels of crude per day from Colorado City to refineries in Houston, was recently completed over landowners’ protests about its path. Local officials cleared the way for the company to use the state’s eminent domain law to condemn land for the pipeline. It came online last year.

Some environmentalists acknowledge that changing a pipeline’s route often may be the best they can hope for.
“I’m telling people I don’t think it’s going to stop,” said Paul Stolen, a retired state biologist who has been working with groups opposing the Enbridge project in Minnesota. “I think it’s going to escalate and get bigger.”
In most states, opponents have to prove a project does not serve the public interest or poses a clear environmental threat.

In states that depend on energy jobs, regulators tend to be receptive to the industry. Supporters also argue that transporting oil by pipeline is safer than by train, noting recent accidents and spills.
Since 2012, more than 50 pipeline projects have been approved, completed or are under development, including the just finished 600-mile Enbridge Flanagan South line, which runs through four states.
The recent surge in oil production, from roughly 5 million barrels a day in 2008 to 8.9 million barrels in 2014, has pushed new webs of pipe across regions that until recently had few. Dozens of new lines ranging up to 700 miles connect drill sites in the Upper Midwest to refineries in the region or to hubs in Oklahoma and along the Gulf Coast.
Even TransCanada has been busy. The company unveiled a 200-mile, $600 million proposals late last month that would carry oil from North Dakota’s Bakken field north to Canada and connect to other lines that can take it to the East Coast.
“When Keystone was first announced, I think that was something like a third of (TransCanada’s) expected budget,” said DeSai, the Edward Jones analyst. “TransCanada now has had so many projects that now Keystone’s a much smaller percentage.”
President Barack Obama has said his decision on Keystone, which would take Canadian tar sands oil to Gulf Coast refineries, would depend in part on its possible contribution to global warming. He is awaiting a State Department report on its environmental impact.
But the State Department does not review pipelines that are entirely inside the United States, which is the vast majority of them.
Pipeline companies also soften resistance by paying landowners for access and by assuming all liability for leaks. But some opponents say they believe that the new resistance inspired by Keystone will eventually raise more public concern about oil shipments.
From <http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2015/03/fight-over-keystone-xl-project-doesn-t-stall-oil-pipeline-boom.html?cmpid=EnlWeeklyPetroMarch202015&gt;