According to the New Scientist's editorial for the 9th November 2013, we could be on the way to saving our planet even without a climate deal.
Really?
They base this wildly optimistic view on a report I highlighted last week. In it the writers say that annual global CO2 emissions increases are slowing down and may even start decreasing by 2020.
It's good news, but a long, long way from "job done". The gap between the commitments made by individual countries and what's actually needed to keep global warming below 2 C is huge. So, when I see the New Scientist say "...while a global deal would clearly be a good thing, we could be on the way to saving the planet without it." I'm left shaking my head. What an incredibly naiive thing to say.
Also dangerous. If the politicians start thinking this way before a global deal is reached in 2015, we're screwed.
No comments:
Post a Comment