The two degrees over pre-industrial level temperature goal which is set by the 1970 studies has been debated in the Copenhagen Agreement and the Stern survey during the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference.
At the past United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change gathered in Lima, Peru at the end of last year, researchers were questioning the two degree Celsius imprint, and several experts suggested to bring down the imprint to 1.5 degree Celsius or even more as the initial target might not be enough.
The two degree standard directs the changes in heat waves, rise in ocean level, climate blueprints, downpours, droughts and other natural catastrophes, in the hike top regions and the Polar areas.
Petra Tschakert, from Penn State University and a lead creator of the report for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change explained:
“A low temperature target is the best bet to prevent severe, pervasive, and potentially irreversible impacts while allowing ecosystems to adapt naturally, ensuring food production and security, and enabling economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”
Tschakert further noted that the agreement that transpired during the session was that a 2°C level appeared to be completely unsuitable given the already known effects on environments, food, livelihoods and sustainable development. The lower temperature standard is important for the survival of the vegetation and fauna, including the human species.
Tschakert is the only researcher who has cautioned that a lower temperature increase aim is vital and paramount to our survival.
During a recent meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, a large part of the Panel’s officials appeared to concur. On the other hand, whether this new objective is achievable is debatable. A few specialists already suggest this objective is unattainable as emissions have increased and will probably bring about a 3° C temperature increment by 2100.
In the event that people in different parts of the world could be persuaded to make such a pledge, this could yield genuine results. Anyhow, as the Times cautions, the world is diverse and muddled and to fight environmental change and a global warming, we will need to come up with a worldwide, “solid system” with consequences for free riders who don’t abide the rules of the game.
Image Source: Fresh Fuzz