Bad news for all inhabitants of the planet from which you're reading this blog post: data gathered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, show that the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air spiked in 2012, "making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees as many global leaders have hoped." The CO2 increase "reflects the world's economy revving up and burning more fossil fuels, especially in China." [Honolulu Star-Advertiser]

  • jimkirk

    Well, I’ll assume they measure and correct for such things, but measuring Carbon Dioxide right next to a volcano that might be belching out who knows what?

  • SamSam

    Well, shit.

  • Don Norris

    Oh yeah Jim, I bet that for the last 50 years it never occurred to those silly scientists that maybe the volcano would skew their results. I think you should write to them at once.

    • jimkirk

      Well, like I said, I assume they’ve accounted for such things.  It’s good to see a link explaining that.  I shan’t be writing them.

  • theobroma

    I suppose the best hope at this point is geoengineering (well, intentional geoengineering as opposed to the accidental geoengineering we’ve been engaged in).  What could possibly go wrong?

    • class_enemy

      The only other plan seems to be something like this:

      (1) USA and Europe voluntarily “rev down” their economies so as to produce fewer GHGs.
      (2) India, China, et al. upon observing (1), start to feel guilty about what they are doing to the planet.
      (3) India, China, et al., out of a sense of shame, rev down their economies so as to produce fewer GHGs.

      So far, we are actually doing pretty good at step 1, but the succeeding steps have, shall we say, not quite materialized??

      It appears that we may therefore have to give geoengineering a try.

      • rocketpjs

         In what way are we doing well at step one?  By allowing the bankers to fuck over the economy, thus reducing demand?

        I have yet to see anything more than tokenism on the part of most of our governments (a few Euros, but certainly not any of us in North America).

        • http://www.jeremiahblatz.com/ Jeremiah Blatz

          Well, Europe is doing pretty well at reducing their emissions. Although there’s a little hiccup as everyone panics about nuclear power and fires up their coal plants instead.

          Also, I think step 2 is “well, we did it, now you do it or we impose trade sanctions.”

          • class_enemy

            Please advise me as to how we impose trade sanctions on the country from which we borrow forty percent of our federal budget every year.

          • http://www.jeremiahblatz.com/ Jeremiah Blatz

            We do it with friends. Lots of friends. Honestly, China is the *last* country that would sign on to any climate treaty. Conveniently, if they’re the last one, the entire rest of the world does have quite a bit of leverage.

          • Cowicide

            everyone panics about nuclear power and fires up their coal plants instead.

            Also:
            RE: Jeremiah Blatz

            The article you linked had estimates that were all over the place.

            Ok, forget the wikipedia article.  It’s surprising that someone who seems so adept at research also can’t seem to locate sources that show the reality that nuclear is simply far too expensive:

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/
            Please note this link above is not a liberal magazine (it’s Forbes) and the guy saying this is freshly-retired CEO of Exelon, America’s largest producer of nuclear power.

            Also this from one of largest investor sites in the world –  5 Facts that sink nuclear power:
            http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/21/5-facts-that-sink-nuclear-power.aspx
            (Note the economic issues among others)

            So, still cheaper overall than coal.

            Doesn’t matter.  We can and do make solar cheaper than coal as well and we do that DESPITE the fact that we’re up against an entire industry that does nothing but try and thwart it 24/7 with mountains of FUD.

            Source on cost of solar vs. coal (and let’s not forget externalities, please!):
            http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/03/thin-film-solar-power-to-be-sold-for-less-than-coal/

            Source of FUD:
            http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html

            (Include rant here about thorium reactors, which apparently produce nuclear waste that’s only dangerously radioactive for 200 years.)

            Yay, only dangerous for 200 years… fantastic.

            Thorium is a pipe dream…

            Thorium is unable to produce energy on its own, you still need uranium-235 (or plutonium-239) to operate the reactor. Uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are both considered bomb making materials and a proliferation risk.  Also, many thorium reactors use liquid sodium fluoride in the reactor process which is highly toxic.

            Germany experimented a Thorium reactor (THTR-300) and they had major structural issues because of the extremely high heat. As a matter of fact, there was radiation released into the atmosphere because of a malfunction. The reactor was scrapped because of all the costs and dangers.

            Thorium isn’t “safe” and is not (in reality) inexpensive and it sure as hell isn’t even close to sustainable.

            I would love to have 100% renewable power. But more important to me is that we get the Earth carbon negative as soon as possible. Wind is looking like the real winner. It’s easy and preposterously cheap. But here’s the problem: current world wind power generation is 282 gW. The most aggressive estimates put 2020 production around 2 tW.* In 2009, the world consumed over 20 tW of electricity.** The total non-renewable human energy consumption in 2008 was 125 tW!***

            Except there’s much more than wind available to us and you’re strangely leaving that out.

            Grapheme is a toy. It’s currently produced by hand using scotch tape in quantities of square centimeters.

            You should do much more research on Graphene before making such bold (but terribly errant) statements.  Perhaps you are searching with your incorrect spelling of it? I don’t know…

            New Technique Scales Up Production of Graphene Micro-Supercapacitors:
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130220100755.htm

            http://bucky-central.me.utexas.edu/RuoffsPDFs/179.pdf

            It’s scalable.  Look into it. And please do more research, graphene isn’t the ONLY method that should be researched here and making gains. It’s interesting how selective you are about things like this…

            We don’t have time to develop grid-scale grapheme ultracapacitor storage, or even vehicular-scale. There is a *lot* of money going into energy storage

            Citations sorely needed (and please don’t bother with libertarian “think tank” drivel).  Anyway, this only further proves my point that we need a federal “Manhatten Project” dedicated to sustainable energy R&D.  As I said, it would include energy storage as well.

            Are you trying to tell me we have that kind of funding?  Not even close.

            Then again, you poo-poo things like graphene without giving it diligent research first, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on things like this.

            but energy storage is hard.

            So was putting a man on the Moon.  Many said it was impossible.  Too bad we gave up and never did that, huh?

            Once again, many things are “harder” if you don’t put in the proper R&D money.  Anyway, once again, this only further proves my point that we need a federal “Manhatten Project” dedicated to sustainable energy R&D.  And, as I said, it would include energy storage R&D as well.

            Despite the lack of proper funding, sustainable energy has been making huge amounts of headway.  If you question this, then go back and search through my older posts on boingboing and/or do proper research all over the Internet (it’s out there, if you look.)

            We cannot wait to get over the “development hump” with new technologies.

            That’s ridiculous.  Even with all the corporatist greed that tries to keep sustainable energy down it’s making gains by leaps and bounds.  You only have to do proper research to know this.  We just need to fund it as I’ve said and do it now despite the misinformed naysayers who don’t do proper research on these matters and/or are swayed by corporatist FUD.

            shutting down nuke plants is in no way helping.

            I never suggested that we shut down current nuclear power plants (right now).  I’m saying that we need to stop building more of them and divert that precious money into much more sustainable energy sources.  That’s a huge difference.  Only down the road will we dismantle nukes after more sustainable energy fills the gap (and then some).

            And, once again, that time will come much sooner once we start our federal “Manhatten Project” dedicated to more sustainable energy.  Please try to look past the libertarian “think thank” FUD.  I know it’s not easy, but that’s possible as well with more dilgent research. The time is NOW.

        • class_enemy

          Most of what has been done deliberately is tokenism, absolutely.  I especially adore the cute articles about “how you can reduce your personal carbon footprint”, which if followed dutifully by ten thousand Americans might possibly offset the carbon produced by one Chinese family’s coal burning stoves.

          What we have seen recently though, clearly shows that if we want and need to get GHG emissions down damn quick, there is no more effective method than good ol’ negative economic growth.

          And it’s a positive feedback loop too. In order to get carbon emissions down to what the activists seem to think is necessary, we will require a truly massive cutback in electricity usage as well as in private transportation, for all but the 1% who will continue to be able to afford it.

          Read Bill McKibben’s “Eaarth” to get an idea of what I’m talking about. This basically means a collapse of global economic demand that would make 2008 look like a walk in the park (and to some, that is a feature, not a bug). Especially if along with “no coal” we have “no nukes, no dams, and no fracking either”.

          The solutions to global warming have been as relentlessly sugar coated by nominally pro-climate politicians (millions of mythical “good paying green jobs”) as its potential dangers have been by the deniers.

          • Cowicide

            GHG emissions down damn quick, there is no more effective method than good ol’ negative economic growth.

            Well, blowing up the Earth would solve it too.  How about we focus on more sustainable energy instead?

            The solutions to global warming have been as relentlessly sugar coated by nominally pro-climate politicians (millions of mythical “good paying green jobs”) as its potential dangers have been by the deniers.

            Looks like you’ve been reading too much liar libertarian FUD from “Reason” which is brought to you compliments of Koch Industries, etc.

            Source of FUD:
            http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html

            Also, please stop with the false equivalency.

            There’s a dedicated, massive network of richly funded corporatist lackeys hiding under the guise of being libertarian “think tanks” that spread FUD on unprecedented levels.

            On the other hand, green jobs are real.

            Source (there’s many more if you BOTHER TO LOOK):
            http://www.boell.org/web/139-735.html

            Then again, you’ll find plenty of naysayers from the FUD machine that say this REALITY is all “fantasy”…

            Check your sources.  Check your sources.  Check your sources.

          • class_enemy

            Haven’t read much by the Koch brothers lately.

            What I have been reading are the books by Bill McKibben which argue that we need to de-industrialize society in a pretty significant way.

            Which I’m starting to think might be true.  The “green jobs” are going to be much like the jobs of the seventeenth century.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1606613036 Michael Manchester

    This might have gotten some attention in the mainstream media, but now that the pope has quit all the journalistic resources are tied up right now.

  • Petzl

    This is depressing.  We (or, rather, our grandchildren) will have to suffer rising sea levels, species die out, climate calamities, and all the financial hardships that this implies, because of rich, greedy corporatists and their non-rich Tea Party-ite useful idiots.

    • http://www.jeremiahblatz.com/ Jeremiah Blatz

      No, no, it’s we. Sandy, Irene, last summer’s crop failures in the US midwest. Problem is, it’s going to get worse no matter what, just a matter of how much worse.

      • http://www.batshite.com/royalflush Scott Bartlett

        Agree. Too many people think of this as tomorrow’s problem. It’s today’s.

  • tubacat

    “inhabitants of the planet from which you’re reading this blog post”…

    I imagine in my mind’s eye some inhabitants of some other planet “reading” this post on Boing Boing, shaking their heads, and saying the equivalent of, “Too bad those charming yet bumbling little beings fucked up the only place they had to live…”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Glanton/100000219826532 John Glanton

    Yet the temperature still did not rise….

  • Jonathan Roberts

    I always find it a little disturbing to see how quickly people start blaming developing countries for starting to act like the rest of us. China is growing very fast and there is waste there, but from what I can see, they are still a long way off the kind of consumption levels seen in the West. In 2008 China was at number 78 in the world with 5.3 metric tonnes of CO2 per capita per annum; India was at 145 with 1.4. Sure, they were and are rising fast but they were still well under a third of USA’s level and are only now just reaching the level of  environmentally friendly countries like Germany and Japan (that is, when you put all of the burden of their factories producing our stuff onto them and also discount international travel from the figures)

    Both China and India are developing fast and need to build a modern country to match – they don’t have the luxury of centuries of investment to build on. Seeing countries like these develop so quickly and use up so many resources is frightening for anyone who is concerned about the effects on the planet. But anyone who primarily blames these countries while living in a country that has used resources far in excess of this for decades is profoundly hypocritical in my view.

    In my city it varies between -30 C in winter and 35+ in summer. Years ago, almost everyone cycled everywhere and many people lived in the country in basically unheated homes. Do we want to deny people the right to have modern apartments, refrigerators, cars (I can tell you that it is very uncomfortable to cycle in the middle of summer or winter here), air conditioning and heating and the other amenities that we take for granted, despite them having the money to buy these things? Honestly, I have my suspicions that a reasonable portion of the criticism of China and India from the West comes from the fact that their consumption threatens our own.

    This isn’t to marginalize the importance of what is happening (and certainly not to withhold criticism in areas such as the illegal trade in endangered animal products etc.), but I seriously don’t see why China should feel any more shame for its development than we do (nor do I see why we should feel that good about any reduction in consumption on our part, especially as recently a lot of that was not our choice).