We Have Five Years To Fix This

The International Energy Agency just released its most recent report on climate change.

The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be “lost for ever”, according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this “lock-in” effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world’s foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.

No need to worry – it’s all a conspiracy by the scientists, who are somehow getting rich off this (which is why everybody can name a single rich climatologist).

Remember this if you’re considering voting for the GOP…because y’know…there’s no evidence for man-made global warming.

Disproving Evolution - Part 3
Colorado Republicans vote to discontinue a program that dropped the abortion rate by 42%
Carly Fiorina learns the hard way to register your domain name.
Disproving Evolution - Part 2
About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • xeonneo

    Think we can start forcibly tearing fossil-fuel burning things down?
    You know… In self defense.

  • Jim Baerg

    We can thank everyone who opposed nuclear power for the last few decades for making the problem much worse than it would have otherwise been.

  • Richard

    Or solar. I love solar.

  • jakc

    At least we have a theme song now (five years by David Bowie)

    And sure, everyone loves solar, but it is time to make some real compromises and get things done – that means nuclear.

  • Vx

    Well, as much as I hate to admit this, I’m thinking we’re going to have to develop contingency plans, ‘cuz this isn’t going to get fixed. Anybody have a guide to the predicted consequences by geographical location?

  • docsarvis

    Vx, I’ve been looking for such a guide for several years, and none exists. The general consensus is the Southwest United States will get drier, the Pacific Northwest will get wetter, and the Northeast will get more snow and warmer nights. This is already happening. The Arctic Circle is getting warmer in the winter and the coldest weather in North America is shifting south into Canada and the the Northern U.S. plains states.

    The problem with making predictions about specific areas is twofold. There are many variables, and crunching those variables takes tremendous processing power. This is why the models only account for large areas.

    I agree we need to make contingency plans. Texas voters just approved a $6 billion bond fund to develop water retention sites. This is a start, but it is only a bit more than 10 percent of what the Texas Water Development Board says we need.

  • Aliasalpha

    Would the democrats actually do anything about the problem even if they somehow won every single election or would the disaster still happen but with empty platitudes about it being a serious subject they need to look into (as opposed to the get rich quick myth)?

  • ShavenYak

    The reason we can’t point to any rich climatologists yet is that, like the Underpants Gnomes, they just haven’t figured out phase two:

    1) Promote the fake science of global warming
    2) ?
    3) Profit!

  • Mark

    They tried to scare us with this sort of stuff in the 1990′s . . . it never happened. It still snows, the earth is not under water, and we still have an ozone layer. Besides, just think of all the virgin farmland that will some day be available if Siberia and Canada were to completely thaw.

    • Jim Baerg

      Not as much new farmland as you seem to think.
      There are very large areas of Canada in which the climate is fine for growing many crops, but which are unfarmable because the climate of 20000 years ago meant that glaciers scraped off the soil & dumped it elsewhere.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield

      • Mark

        What about Siberia? Also, glacial till is extremely fertile, and it didn’t only end up in Ohio. The shield, while large is not the only place in Canada covered by ice. I am not going to argue it, some people are determined to panic themselves beyond common sense.