11-Year Deadline for Carbon Output

According to a paper published in 2009, we have 11 years left to seriously cut back on our carbon output. “Greenhouse-Gas Emission Targets for Limiting Global Warming to 2° C” was published in Nature, a high-end, respected science journal. And now it’s shaping the debate on global warming, giving us a goal to reach before we go past the famed point of no return.

The paper has given hard evidence and facts to a debate that had only a few facts before. Global warming was something we knew we ought to avoid and scientists had already agreed that to raise global temperature averages by more than 2 degrees Celsius would be disastrous. When the paper was published, governments and scientists found out for the first time just how far along that path we already were.

The paper established a “carbon budget” for the world, showing how much carbon has been emitted by various countries as well as detailing how much more we could burn before hitting the 2 degrees marker. It wasn’t the first paper to conduct such research, but it was the most thorough.

It found that in order to stay under the 2C mark, the world had few choices: a 50% chance required burning no more than 1,437 gigatons of carbon from 2000 until 2050. An 80% chance budget entailed just 886 gigatons. By 2006, we had already burned a quarter of that amount, meaning we would hit the threshold by 2024 if emissions stayed the same—26 years before we ought to. And that’s if levels didn’t continue their growing trend.

That means that 80% of all fossil fuel reserves need to stay untouched for the next 40 years. This “unburnable” carbon is a serious dispute since many companies are looking to profit from such reserves. Plus, companies like Shell, BP, and Statoil would lose up to 60% of their market values if governments do enforce laws to reduce carbon emissions.

These days, no one’s really disputing the science. The bigger question is what we can do to continue to function on a carbon budget that falls below the 2C threshold.

“Oil, gas and coal are going to be used for the foreseeable future,” said chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, John Felmy. “It’s inevitable. Instead of talking about an improbable fossil fuel scenario, we need to have a rational discussion about energy policy… focusing on things like improving efficiency.”