In another alarming signal that the international community is failing to take the kind of ambitious action necessary to avert global climate catastrophe, NOAA released new data Tuesday showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels—which environmentalist Bill McKibben described as the "single most important stat on the planet"—reached a "record high" in the month of May.
"The measurement is the highest seasonal peak recorded in 61 years of observations on top of Hawaii's largest volcano and the seventh consecutive year of steep global increases in concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2)," NOAA said in a statement on Tuesday. "The 2019 peak value was 3.5 PPM higher than the 411.2 PPM peak in May 2018 and marks the second-highest annual jump on record."
"The only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I'm sorry, but it's still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at."
According to NOAA's measurements—which were taken at the Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory in Hawaii—carbon dioxide levels peaked at an average of 414.7 PPM in May.
As The Guardian reported, "Scientists have warned for more than a decade that concentrations of more than 450 PPM risk triggering extreme weather events and temperature rises as high as 2°C, beyond which the effects of global heating are likely to become catastrophic and irreversible."
Reacting to NOAA's new measurements, McKibben tweeted, "This is legit scary."
Single most important stat on the planet: CO2 rose 3.5 parts per million last year, 2nd-highest annual rise on record. This is legit scary https://t.co/0wGh8NfZcF — Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) June 5, 2019
In a report last October, United Nations scientists warned that global carbon emissions must be cut in half by 2030 in order to avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis.
As Common Dreams reported last month when levels at Mauna Loa briefly hit 415 PPM, the occurrence was described as otherworldly for humanity and something not experienced by the planet in over three million years.
Climate scientist Peter Gleick noted that the "last time humans experienced levels this high was... never. Human[s] didn't exist."
Atmospheric CO2 levels have now reached 415 ppm. The last time humans experienced levels this high was... never. Human didn't exist.#climatecrisis #climatechange pic.twitter.com/xtRSF2ScGC — Peter Gleick (@PeterGleick) May 13, 2019
NOAA's new data for the month of May as a whole comes amid a global wave of youth-led marches and civil disobedience demanding immediate climate action from political leaders.
In her forward to 350.org campaigner Daniel Hunter's newly published Climate Resistance Handbook, Greta Thunberg—the 16-year-old Swedish activist who helped inspire the worldwide surge in youth climate mobilizations—argued that the success or failure of the global climate movement will be determined by one measure: "the emission curve."
"People always tell me and the other millions of school strikers that we should be proud of ourselves for what we have accomplished," Thunberg wrote. "But the only thing that we need to look at is the emission curve. And I'm sorry, but it's still rising. That curve is the only thing we should look at."
"Every time we make a decision we should ask ourselves; how will this decision affect that curve?" Thunberg added. "We should no longer measure our wealth and success in the graph that shows economic growth, but in the curve that shows the emissions of greenhouse gases."
"We should no longer only ask: 'Have we got enough money to go through with this?' but also: 'Have we got enough of the carbon budget to spare to go through with this?'" Thunberg wrote. "That should and must become the center of our new currency."
Nomad79 on June 6th, 2019 at 14:23 UTC »
The people who can make change on a massive scale are too old to care. It won’t affect them so being in denial doesn’t matter.
Em_Haze on June 6th, 2019 at 14:20 UTC »
'legit scary' wtf is that for a report.
ILikeNeurons on June 6th, 2019 at 13:04 UTC »
The consensus among scientists and economists on carbon pricing§ to mitigate climate change is similar to the consensus among climatologists that human activity is responsible for global warming. Putting the price upstream where the fossil fuels enter the market makes it simple, easily enforceable, and bureaucratically lean. Returning the revenue as an equitable dividend offsets the regressive effects of the tax (in fact, ~60% of the public would receive more in dividend than they paid in tax) and allows for a higher carbon price (which is what matters for climate mitigation) because the public isn't willing to pay anywhere near what's needed otherwise. Enacting a border tax would protect domestic businesses from foreign producers not saddled with similar pollution taxes, and also incentivize those countries to enact their own.
Conservative estimates are that failing to mitigate climate change will cost us 10% of GDP over 50 years, starting about now. In contrast, carbon taxes may actually boost GDP, if the revenue is returned as an equitable dividend to households (the poor tend to spend money when they've got it, which boosts economic growth).
Taxing carbon is in each nation's own best interest, and many nations have already started, which can have knock-on effects in other countries. In poor countries, taxing carbon is progressive even before considering smart revenue uses, because only the "rich" can afford fossil fuels in the first place. We won’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels without a carbon tax, the longer we wait to take action the more expensive it will be. Each year we delay costs ~$900 billion.
It's the smart thing to do, and the IPCC report made clear pricing carbon is necessary if we want to meet our 1.5 ºC target.
Contrary to popular belief the main barrier isn't lack of public support. But we can't keep hoping others will solve this problem for us. We need to take the necessary steps to make this dream a reality:
Lobby for the change we need. Lobbying works, and you don't need a lot of money to be effective (though it does help to educate yourself on effective tactics). If you're too busy to go through the free training, sign up for text alerts to join coordinated call-in days (it works) or set yourself a monthly reminder to write a letter to your elected officials. According to NASA climatologist and climate activist Dr. James Hansen, becoming an active volunteer with Citizens' Climate Lobby is the most important thing you can do for climate change, and climatologist Dr. Michael Mann calls its Carbon Fee & Dividend policy an example of sort of visionary policy that's needed.
§ The IPCC (AR5, WGIII) Summary for Policymakers states with "high confidence" that tax-based policies are effective at decoupling GHG emissions from GDP (see p. 28). Ch. 15 has a more complete discussion. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world, has also called for a carbon tax. According to IMF research, most of the $5.2 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels come from not taxing carbon as we should. There is general agreement among economists on carbon taxes whether you consider economists with expertise in climate economics, economists with expertise in resource economics, or economists from all sectors. It is literally Econ 101. The idea just won a Nobel Prize.