Burning all the world’s coal, oil and natural gas would lead to temperature increases that would melt Antarctica’s ice sheet and raise sea level more than 200 feet, a… nytimes.com|By JUSTIN GILLIS

It’s time to check out 350.org

Burning all the world’s coal, oil and natural gas would lead to temperature increases that would melt Antarctica’s ice sheet and raise sea level more than 200 feet, a…
nytimes.com|By JUSTIN GILLIS

Alan Rusbridger, Guardian, If we burn all our carbon reserves, we will cook ourselves.

Post from Gray is Green.org  on Facebook.

From the Editor of the Guardian: “The coming debate is about two things: what governments can do to attempt to regulate, or otherwise stave off, the now predictably terrifying consequences of global warming beyond 2C by the end of the century. And how we can prevent the states and corporations which own the planet’s remaining reserves of coal, gas and oil from ever being allowed to dig most of it up. We need to keep them in the ground.
An oil field in North Dakota, US.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
An oil field in North Dakota, US. Photograph: Les Stone/Les Stone/Corbis

There are three really simple numbers which explain this (and if you have even more appetite for the subject, read the excellent July 2012 Rolling Stone piece by the author and campaigner Bill McKibben, which – building on the work of the Carbon Tracker Initiative – first spelled them out).

2C: There is overwhelming agreement – from governments, corporations, NGOs, banks, scientists, you name it – that a rise in temperatures of more than 2C by the end of the century would lead to disastrous consequences for any kind of recognised global order.
565 gigatons: “Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by mid-century and still have some reasonable hope of staying below 2C,” is how McKibben crisply puts it. Few dispute that this idea of a global “carbon budget” is broadly right.
2,795 gigatons: This is the amount of carbon dioxide that if they were burned would be released from the proven reserves of fossil fuel – ie the fuel we are planning to extract and use.

You do not need much of a grasp of maths to work out the implications. There are trillions of dollars worth of fossil fuels currently underground which, for our safety, simply cannot be extracted and burned. All else is up for debate: that much is not.”

As global warming argument moves on to politics and business, Alan Rusbridger explains the thinking behind our major series on the climate crisis
theguardian.com|By Alan Rusbridger