Study: Global warming this century could lead to ‘hundreds of millions’ dead
Published: May 22, 2009
Updated 6 months ago
House Energy and Commerce Committee backs 83 percent emissions cut by 2050
A new study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate warns that global climate change may actually be twice as detrimental as previously predicted, with temperatures climbing by as much as nine degrees by 2100, leading to mass migrations, wars and "hundreds of millions" dead.
"The research, conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), predicts a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise more than 9 degrees (F) by 2100, compared to a previous 2003 MIT study that forecast a rise of just over 4 degrees," noted USA Today .
The paper added: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 forecast a temperature rise of anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees by 2100 based on a variety of different greenhouse-gas-emissions scenarios."
"The new study was done using 400 applications of a computer model, which included looking at complicated factors such as atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems data, as well as global economic activity," noted Reuters .
The same day as the study was published, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved, by a vote of 33 to 25, a plan to reduce America’s climate-driving emissions 83 percent by 2050.
"This bill, when enacted into law this year, will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our nation the world leader in clean energy jobs and technology, and cut global warming pollution," said committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA).
"The legislation has four titles," notes the Environmental News Service :
* A clean energy title that promotes renewable sources of energy, carbon capture and sequestration technologies, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid and electricity transmission.
* An energy efficiency title that increases energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy, including buildings, appliances, transportation, and industry.
* A global warming title that places limits on emissions of heat-trapping pollutants and establishes a cap-and-trade system of limiting carbon emissions and trading in emissions allowances. This would cut global warming pollution by 17 percent compared to 2005 levels in 2020, by 42 percent in 2030, and by 83 percent in 2050. These are science-based targets and within the range agreed to by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, USCAP, a coalition of some of America’s largest corporations and environmental NGOs.
* A title that protects U.S. consumers and industry and promotes green jobs during the transition to a clean energy economy.
"Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken said that if the new research by MIT is accurate the results for the planet would be catastrophic," reported The Telegraph .
"A 7.4C rise would mean severe ecosystem collapse worldwide, with total economic collapse in many parts of the world," Picken told the paper. "The planet would face resource wars between people, and you can safely say many, many hundred of millions of people would die."
"Because vehicles last for years, and buildings and powerplants last for decades, it is essential to start making major changes through adoption of significant national and international policies as soon as possible," advised an MIT press release regarding the new study. "The least-cost option to lower the risk is to start now and steadily transform the global energy system over the coming decades to low or zero greenhouse gas-emitting technologies."
20 comments
Printer Friendly |
Email
| Get breaking news alerts: Email/mobile |
The time for “decades of migration” are LONG gone.
I’ve been saying for the past 5 years that “the estimates are way too low”.. and all that time, nothing has been done. This will be a case of “too little, too late”.
We need to move away from the old paradigms and into new ones. Resource Based Economy, abolish money, massive education. Billions of lives depend on it.
This is very important to THEM b/c they will have the life extension tech available by then. or, just BS as a pretxt to collapse US economy. what economy? i know.
OMG! “The new study was done using 400 applications of a computer model, which included looking at complicated factors such as atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems data, as well as global economic activity,” noted Reuters .”
400 applications of a computer model! It must be correct! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
More correct than *you*, who has absolutely no data to support your claim. Jesus fucking christ, how can you not see the polar ice caps shrinking in size every year?
Yes we do need to care for the only planet we have. We are in this together..But some say they sound like they are in cohoots with the who swine flu people..
“The planet would face resource wars between people, and you can safely say many, many hundred of millions of people would die.” - I’m actually not so sure that you can safely say that, this statement seems uh, a little weak. Perhaps the headline should read, ‘interpretation of study, blah blah blah’.
resource wars are already under way in several places around the world. Once water becomes more and more scarce, you don’t think people will fight over it? Once more and more arable land turns to scrub and desert, you don’t think people will fight for land to grow food on, raise animals on?
While some nations will leverage new technologies to help mitigate the coming problems, you have to remember that less than 1/2 of the world’s population live in “modern times”.. that’s a LOT of people that are barely scraping by as it is. over 3 billion. So, yes.. hundreds of millions dying as coastal areas flood, fertile plains become desert, lakes dry up, snow/ice capped mountains become bare (no more fresh water for lots of people), seems reasonable.
The planet is ALREADY seeing resource wars. Why do you think Bush invaded Iraq? (For the oil, duh.)
Global warming is a myth, it is just another scam to fleece us of our income.
We, the people know that the technology exists to stop this at any moment.
We cannot have “free energy”, with the excuse that if it were made available it would be a “disaster”. I cant find any good reason in that the only disaster it would cause would be to the energy industry.
Obviously the question of peoples well being are not taken into consideration.
We know free energy exists and we (the people) do nothing about it.
Global warming (if it exists) would be greatly reduced.
There is another way we can cut CO2 emissions and that is to get rid of all vegetation, being that it is the major contributor (93%+) to the atmosphere.
Global warming does not exist, never existed and will never exist unnaturally.
Nature does what nature does.
Our nano-contribution is well taken into consideration and nature strikes the balance.
“There is another way we can cut CO2 emissions and that is to get rid of all vegetation, being that it is the major contributor (93%+) to the atmosphere.”
Interesting.. I always thought plants _absorbed_ CO2, released O2 (oxygen), and stored the carbon from the air in their plant material as they grew. My understanding would suggest we needed to have _more_ plants, then bury the material after it grew sufficiently (or died of natural causes) thereby taking that carbon out of the air and putting it way underground where it won’t go back into the atmosphere.
Since you show I was wrong, I guess removing a major natural CO2 sink from the planet is the only way to fix things. I was looking at it all backwards. Thanks, harryellimpio, for showing me the light! Oh, and we certainly don’t need any plants at all for food, or to feed our food.. so, you’re idea is well thought out and provides a very valuable option.
/snark
Wondering why my previous reply to this stooge was removed.
MY opinion is that
The “dangers of CO2″ buisiness is a joke, CO2 is an essencial part of life.
Not one of us can agree whether:-
CO2 is benificial or harmfull.
Is too little or too much.
The reason is we just don’t know and therefore it becomes hearsay,
and as hearsay is non admissable, I rest my case.
We have no and unable to have any model to compare it with, so how do we reach the conclusions that it is harmfull or benificial.
Global warming is a myth, just another product that can be sold.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2009/04/27/an-agw-conundrum-plants-do-better-with-dirty-skies/
Here you will find that nature takes care of things.
Estimates on global warming will always be estimates, of which you can only “assume” what CO2 is doing and what it is not doing.
There is no solid proof, for or against.
Not only do we have to pay for comodities, we pay for the shit those commodities produce.
Free clean energy is available and has been for years, but as it is “not worth anything”, it cannot and will not be allowed.
“It will ruin the world” (Quote from the Illuminati)
The vegetation I am refering to, are those that have created the whole “global warming” red flag.
Global warming is a creation of the elite and not CO2.
I apologise for not phrasing it better.
That is a conservative estimate. The final numbers will be billions, not hundreds of millions.
Ultimately if we do not figure out highly sophisticated space travel, each and every human being will eventually cease to exist.
2050??? WHAT THE FUCK!!!
There was a BLUR of action to save Wall Street and the banks but the EARTH (Our Home)? Fuggit …no hurry.
Global warming, global cooling, etc, etc, etc, Are we not tired of the BS story by now? This is nothing but a hoax to drain capital from us.
I see you are trying out to be the poster child for anti-science, anti-intellect, and anti-reason.
Science has given you EVERYTHING you have today.. yet you would seemingly say “shitting in a corner in my house is fine! I don’t need to buy one of those ‘toilet’ thingys!”
The fact is, we’re polluting our own nest; it just happens to be a very big nest and it’s hard for an individual to see the direct action, and the result is large and slow, so the average joe can’t see the change “in real time”, so they ignore it.
Thanks for showing that we still have a HUGE population in our species that are still just shit flinging monkeys in the trees.
I can remember when “scientific studies” said bananas were bad for you. Then shortly after they said they were good. Then they did the same thing with eggs. Not to long ago they were threatening us with “another ice age” if you believe the first one happened. Anyway the point is it is all directed to scare and confuse people. Can anyone remember that this all started because Al Gore said so. Now scientist have taken hold and are running with it. The scientist also claim dinosaurs died out millions of years ago and never coexisted with man. Yet they were written about over 2000 yrs. ago in the Bible seen by Job. The Bible says the sun will be allowed to burn man. The only ones who should be worried about the so called man induced global warming are those who refuse to believe fact “The Bible” over fiction better known as “scientific theory” that’s not my title it comes from the scientist themselves even they know there is no factual basis for their insane ideas.
Tried to see if your neighbor floats yet? I mean, that cute girl getting you all aroused is pissing off your fat ugly wife, so you should probably burn that witch nextdoor.
That many dead? Good, maybe we’ll be able to save the planet afterall. The earth needs a good colon cleanse to get rid of all the polluters.
Most of those that will die aren’t the polluters; their being dirt poor and having to live off the land is what will cause them to have resource wars.. only the dirtball polluters will survive, so saving the planet still isn’t going to happen (unless we change our ways.. “we”, as in the polluters)