By weight, we’ve done more to transform the planet’s atmosphere with the production of carbon emissions than we’ve done to the planet’s surface through the engineering and production of everything that humans ever built still standing today. Think about that for a second. (1/x)
When you hear about carbon in the atmosphere, most of what you hear is that it’s increasing. Sometimes, numbers are cited, typically measures of “parts per million” concentrations: we’re at about 420, up from 280 from before the industrial revolution. 350 is considered “safe.”
When I was born, on August 5, 1982, carbon was at 340 ppm—just below that “safe” level. It is now at 420, and increasing by about 2 parts per million each year.
But another number is one trillion tons—that’s about as much carbon that’s been added to the atmosphere through human activity over the last several hundred years. The total "anthropogenic mass" of the global built environment has been estimated just below that level.
Everything we have constructed on the planet, as a species, over the last hundred thousand years—we’ve done more than that to the atmosphere in just three centuries of adding carbon. And all that carbon is doing one thing: heating the planet. That weight is a weighted blanket.
In fact, because the planet has absorbed about half of the carbon humanity has emitted, leaving half to accumulate in the atmosphere, we've produced in total more than two trillion tons of carbon in industrial history—twice the total mass of the entire built environment today.
The term “greenhouse gas” implies a flimsy pane; “parts per million” suggests a dissipating trace.
But while carbon concentrations will fall if emissions cease, they will fall very slowly, returning to preindustrial levels ultimately only after many millennia—in the meantime a a quasi-permanent atmospheric monument to the fossil-fuel age.
Indeed, much longer lasting, as a monument, than anything we've ever built on the earth's surface. (x/x)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Five years ago, scientists talked about 'business as usual' warming between four and five degrees celsius. Now they talk about two to three. What does that jagged new world look like? A tour of life at 2C. (1/x) nytimes.com/interactive/20…
"Already, it’s a different planet. Climate change has led to roughly 1.2 degrees Celsius of warming so far, making the earth hotter now than it has ever been in the long history of civilization."
"The planet underneath us has changed," @KHayhoe told me. "We already live on a different planet than our entire society was built for—our economy, our agriculture, our water, our infrastructure."
“In narrowing our range of expected climate futures, we’ve traded one set of uncertainties, about temperature rise, for another, about politics and other human feedbacks.” (1/4) nytimes.com/interactive/20…
“We know a lot more now about how much warming to expect, which makes it more possible to engineer a response. That response still begins with cutting emissions, but it is no longer reasonable to believe that it can end there.”
“A politics of decarbonization is evolving into a politics beyond decarbonization, incorporating matters of adaptation and finance and justice (among other issues).”
Just ahead of COP27, the climate future looks both better and worse than it a few years ago. Belated action has made worst-case scenarios much less likely, but delay has made best-case outcomes impossible, too. So where are we headed? A long thread (1/x) nytimes.com/interactive/20…
"Just a few years ago, climate projections for this century looked quite apocalyptic, with most scientists warning that continuing 'business as usual' would bring the world four or even five degrees Celsius of warming..."
"...a change disruptive enough to call forth not only predictions of food crises and heat stress, state conflict and economic strife, but, from some corners, warnings of civilizational collapse and even a sort of human endgame."
In the middle of a quite pessimistic interview about the medium term economic outlook, @nouriel uncorks his climate perspective: “The only caveat is that a lot of real estate is going to be stranded because of global climate change.” (1/x) podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/odd…
“Literally, there are maps that show that half of the U.S. in the next twenty years is going to be either underwater on the coastlines or too hot or drought or wildfires to be living in it.”
“And people have stupidly moved from New York to Miami and from San Francisco to Austin, but Florida is going to be flooded and Texas is going to be too hot to survive there, so there’ll have to be a massive migration from the south and the coastline…”
Since the arrival of vaccines, we've heard a lot about pandemic partisanship and not very much about divisions of race and class and education—gaps which are nearly as large and consequential. (1/x) nytimes.com/2022/10/12/opi…
"As data from the CDC shows, during the country’s brutal wave of the Delta variant of the coronavirus, the age-adjusted death rates for Black Americans were almost twice as high as those of white Americans. For Hispanic Americans, the rates were about 50 percent higher."
"During the initial wave of the Omicron variant, when immune evasion somewhat leveled the playing field of infection, the differences were only slightly smaller, with Black Americans dying about 60 percent more frequently than white Americans."
“Americans are still dying at an annualized rate above 100,000 — a rate that may well grow as we head deeper into the fall. What are we doing about that? What could we be doing?” (1/x) nytimes.com/2022/10/12/opi…
“One set of answers is implied by the story of vaccination and mortality by race, and the way improvements on one measure changed the trajectory of the other: more first shots and more boosting.”
“This is the central strategy offered by the Biden administration. But the vaccinated share of the country has barely grown in months, and the uptake of next generation bivalent boosters looks, in the early stages, quite abysmal.”