Is 350 ppm CO2 Safe?
Posted by edro on June 24, 2008
Original Entry: 350 ppm Safe? Hell, NO!
Related Links:
- Home
- Butterfly Effect
- Collapsing Cities
- Comments
- Drought and Deluge
- Editorial Policy
- Energy
- Energy Dinosaurs
- Failing Ecosystems
- FAIR USE
- FAQ
- Floods
- Food Crisis
- Future Scenarios
- Giga Trends
- Google Gagged
- Human Impact
- Initial Conditions
- Links & Keywords
- Messages
- Nuking Earth
- Our Oceans
- Posts
- RC Matrix
- Shrinking World
- State of the World
- The Economy
- Tipping Point
- TOC
- Topsoil
- Water
Dorothy said
We agree. Our opinion is that we have to bring CO2 levels to at least 325 ppm and the Earth’s temperature back to where it was in the early 1950’s. This way we can refreeze the Polar Ice Cap and stabilize our climate.
One European expert believes even that is not enough:
http://westcoastclimateequity.org/?p=119
Have you see this shocking image from the Hadley Met Office:
http://westcoastclimateequity.org/?p=1521
We must begin removing carbon from our atmosphere as fast as we can. Changing our lightbulbs isn’t going to do it. The question for scientist and decision makers is, how are we going to do this safely? One alternative is CO2 scrubbers, but as far as we know, there’s no public financing for this technology. Klaus Lackner is working on this, but he’s being financed by a private corporation.
feww said
Dorothy – It’s our belief that for climatic security we need to aim for levels of about 260-270ppm.
see original post on my blog
http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/is-350-ppm-safe-hell-no/
Before removing any CO2, it makes a lot more sense to prevent releasing anymore GHG into the atmosphere, prevention being a major part of the “cure!”
With trillion(s) of dollars going to Wall Street “bailout,” it’s hard to see how you could find any money to save the planet this side of the border! Unfortunately, nothing short of a series of major climatic catastrophes would wake up the decision makers.