| ... |
... |
@@ -1,12
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-Coal emissions are at an all time low Mcmahon: |
| 2 |
|
-Jeff Mcmahon, 6-23-2016, "U.S. On Track To Achieve 2030 Emissions Goals In 2016," Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/06/23/u-s-on-track-to-achieve-2030-emissions-goals-in-2016/~~~~~~#76b7efbb42c8 |
| 3 |
|
-A dramatic slump in coal production has pushed U.S. carbon emissions so low that, were the trend to continue, the U.S. would achieve its 2030 emissions goals this year, according to one professor's analysis of data from the Energy Information Administration. Coal production has plummeted 29 percent in 2016 compared to the same period last year, crushed in part by cheap natural gas, which emits about half as much carbon. Unless coal rebounds, the U.S. could achieve a 32 percent reduction in emissions from 2005 levels, according to Daniel Cohan, an assistant professor of environmental engineering at Rice University. That happens to match the final goal set for the year 2030 in the Clean Power Plan (CPP). "It's still conceivable to meet CPP this year, depending on the weather and how much further natural gas prices rise," Cohan told me via email. EIA doesn't expect that to happen. The agency forecasts a colder winter and rising natural gas prices, which would make coal attractive again to power producers. But the notoriously fossil-friendly agency may be overestimating coal's prospects, and Cohan notes that EIA repeatedly lowered its carbon emissions estimates as actual data on First Quarter coal use arrived in recent editions of its Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). |
| 4 |
|
-Nuclear phase-out causes shift to fossil fuels Roston: |
| 5 |
|
-Roston 15 ~~~~~~Eric Roston, writer for Bloomberg, "Why Nuclear Power Is All but Dead in the U.S." Bloomberg News, April 15, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-15/soon-it-may-be-easier-to-build-a-nuclear-plant-in-iran-than-in-the-u-s-~~~~~~ |
| 6 |
|
-That's a huge problem for climate activists who oppose nuclear power. Nuclear plants would likely be replaced by natural gas or (shudder) coal plants, which would drive up carbon dioxide emissions. It's happening in Germany, where the government decided to abandon nuclear power after the March 2011 catastrophe at Fukushima. In Vermont, where a 600-megawatt plant closed in December, carbon-free nuclear power is being replaced largely by fossil-powered electricity from the grid. That makes nuclear an energy source that could help nations meet the goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. We're already about 0.8 degree there. "I can't see a scenario where we can stick to the 2 degree warming commitment ... without a substantial contribution from nuclear," said Michael Liebreich, the founder ofBloomberg New Energy Finance, at its annual conference yesterday. "We have got to figure out nuclear if that envelope is to mean anything to us." There's some movement on giving nuclear power credit where credit is due. The Environmental Protection Agency is working on how to credit nuclear for carbon-free electricity as it finalizes its climate rules on new and existing power plants. That would give nuclear a boost by making it officially a more palatable alternative to coal plants, which until the end of the year will close at an average rate of 88 megawatts a |
| 7 |
|
-The shift to fossil fuels leads to breaching the 2 degree threshold Mastroianni: |
| 8 |
|
-Mastroianni 15 ~~~~~~Brian Mastroianni, "Why 2 degrees are so important to the climate," CBS News, November 30, 2015, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-un-climate-talks-why-2-degrees-are-so-important/~~~~~~ |
| 9 |
|
-As the United Nations conference on climate change gets underway Monday in Paris, one temperature that will be on everyone's minds is 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Although it might not sound like a big number, climatologists predict that if the planet warms a total of 2 degrees more than its average temperature before the Industrial Revolution — when humans started burning fossil fuels — the results could be catastrophic. What could happen? Think events like greater sea level rise submerging the coasts, more pervasive droughts and wildfires, and plant and animal extinctions across the board. Scientists say this amount of temperature increase could leave us with a significantly different Earth. And unless something changes, we're heading in that direction: U.N. and U.K. climate analysts recently concluded that the Earth has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius, with 2015 the hottest year ever recorded. Yale economist William Nordhaus first defined the 2-degree benchmark in a 1977 paper, "Economic Growth and Climate: The Carbon Dioxide Problem." Since then, the figure has stood as a rallying cry for those advocating for cutting back on carbon emissions. For others, 2 degrees is still too high — to allow the Earth to warm even that much would be dire for life on the planet." Those who study the possible impacts of warming think that there is a threshold before we can start to get much more changed in the world — like the flooding of low-lying countries, and things like that," said Eric Larson, a senior scientist at Climate Central, a nonprofit news organization that provides analysis and information on climate science." Science has established for quite a while that we need to respect a threshold of 2 degrees, that being the limit of the temperature increase that we can afford from a human, economic and infrastructure point of view," the top U.N. official on climate change, Christiana Figueres, told CBS News in an interview earlier this fall. Beyond that, "we would be moving into exceedingly dangerous zones of abrupt interruptions to our economy, to our livelihood, to our infrastructure that frankly we wouldn't even know how to deal with." |
| 10 |
|
-====Warming causes extinction **Mazo:====** |
| 11 |
|
-====Jeffrey Mazo, **– PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA **Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, "Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it," pg. 122==== |
| 12 |
|
-The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~~~~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1—7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes. |