Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, often regarded in Europe as the Pope John of climate change, has an interview in German flagship political daily the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ).
Schellnhuber is often regarded as the father of the 2°C limit the UN and warmists keep talking about. To not exceed the 2°C warming limit, Schellnhuber and the warmists say that drastic cuts in CO2 emissions are needed very urgently.
Barroso “appears exhausted”
In the FAZ, Schellnhuber reiterates many of the points he’s made in the past. But a number of his comments relate to the new non-binding emissions targets now proposed by the European Union. The latest EU proposal is to achieve a 40% CO2 reduction by 2030. Many view this as watered down. Schellnhuber characterizes the new target as “a still acceptable level of ambition, and is in any case not a catastrophe.” He adds:
The new target is the weakest version of a European lead role […]. It is compromise that puts competition at the forefront. It is certainly the result of the European economic crisis and an attempt to some extent to address the trauma while at the same time to not abandon climate protection. The fire that burned in President Barroso is pretty much out.”
Later he adds:
Barroso listens and he understands the things, but he appears exhausted by the European crisis.”
By now we see that even top European policy makers, like Barroso and Merkel, view attempts to reduce carbon as clashing with economic stability. They continue to want to pursue carbon reductions, but realize that going it alone is not going to work economically.
“A renewable efficient system is superior”
But Schellnhuber is not one to give up easily and maintains a face of optimism:
I believe that Europe will decarbonize faster than provided by the roadmap because we can anticipate additional technical and social innovations in the years ahead. We know that a renewable efficient system is superior to fossil-nuclear.”
Prof. Schellnhuber must know a technology that the rest of us aren’t aware of. So far there is not a single green energy out there that has been demonstrated to have the superiority he claims. It’s not for nothing European countries are scaling back green energy subsidies. They’re just not working anywhere near as well as hoped. Right now where I live solar panels are covered with 10 cm of snow and the wind is hardly blowing. Cars are running and homes are heating by using fossil fuels.
“By 2050 we have to be near zero globally.”
From a global perspective, Schellnhuber adds:
By 2020 we must reach the peak in CO2 emissions, then it has to go down and by 2050 we have to be near zero globally.”
It’s one thing to be optimistic, but here Schellnhuber is totally out to lunch if he thinks this is a realistic and achievable target. Does he have any understanding about energy supply and consumption? The whole world is expected to consume as much carbon as the poorest African within a single generation? It’s clearer than ever that Schellnhuber completely miscalculated and that his CO2 – 2°C target calculation is fantasy. Expect leaders to keep listening to Schellnhuber, but not to act.
What is professor Schellnhuber’s next step?
I’m going to speak to Barroso about how he can bring this in harmony with the international target of maximum 2°C.
Whether he listens is another question.
5 responses to “Schellnhuber: “The Fire That Burned In President Barroso Is Pretty Much Out … Appears Exhausted”!”
Strangely, nature itself contributes 97% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. Does any think that our human added 12 ppm is going to make any difference?
“It’s clearer than ever that Schellnhuber completely miscalculated and that his CO2 – 2°C target calculation is fantasy. ”
We’re at 14 deg C now, we were at 15.5 deg C in 1990. RSS says we warm with 0.1 deg C per decade. Meaning; if we’re all gonna die after 2 deg C warming, that’s 16 deg C; and we’ll get there in 200 years. 50 years before that, 1990 temperatures will be achieved again; and Techno Parades will be back. That’s in 2163.
Source for the absolute temperatures:
Those need to be called for what they are: malthusians crack pot pushing lysenkoism solutions (which have the same effect by the way). 2°C is a number pulled from where? They can’t tell us how much human CO2 have warm the recent climate (since the 50’s), they can’t tell us how much is natural… China & India Are Building 4 New Coal Power Plants – Every Week.
So ‘global ‘ reduction of CO2 should be translated to ‘ Western’ reduction.
IMO it would be better to have a 2°C warming so we’ll get to similar climat to the MWP. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/de/temps-ar1.jpg
One of the up-and-coming alternative energy plans a few years ago was going to be fueled by the fat and other products of the food processing industry. Specifically, the fat of chickens was considered a viable source because US citizens eat a lot of chicken and the industry is concentrated in warmer/southern states. You might ask how that has worked?
The news story does not report what the source material is but other reports do. I believe the plant was here (using Google Earth):
Street View is helpful.
So: “To not exceed the 2°C warming limit, Schellnhuber and the warmists say that drastic cuts in CO2 emissions are needed very urgently.”
Really? DRASTIC cuts in the 3% emissions that stem from human activity? And how do Schellnhuber and the warmists propose cutting the 97% that come from natural causes?
As these people for real?