Read the English version of this article.

It is not so. The earth is warming by the year 2100 by more than 1.5 degrees, the consequences will be serious, irreversible climate change would be set in motion, such as the recent special report of the IPCC shows.

From the 3. to 14. December discuss politicians and state representatives at a climate conference, therefore, once again, as the 1.5-degree target.

We have asked nine leading climate scientists and researchers: imagine that you are likely to solely determine what should the world do to limit global warming, without negotiations, without political wrangling, and without compromise: What would you do right now, would you rule the world?

Summary: “A CO2 tax makes technologies such as Wind and Solar competitive,”
“Everything is re-built, should be CO2-free,” “All countries should create a balance of damage” “We should reduce meat consumption to 600 grams per week”
“It takes public transport and better tele-conferences” “Our biosphere needs to be protected, thus, it stores carbon,” “We, our agriculture will need to change the system”
“the products should have a CO2-labelling” “We need politicians who represent our interests” view More “, A CO2 tax makes technologies such as Wind and Solar competitive,”

Brigitte Knopf, Secretary-General of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change,Berlin.

Brigitte Knopf is concerned with the implementation of the climate agreement of Paris. © MCC

I would allow countries, companies and citizens no longer free carbon dioxide (CO2) to launch, but immediately cost of 50 Euro for each emitted ton of CO2 insertion. So that everyone would be drawn to the negative effects of fossil fuel emissions, climate change, air pollution or health problems to responsible. A CO2 tax has three effects: first, they punished the consumption of coal, Oil and Gas, according to the carbon content. Secondly, it makes CO2-free technologies such as Wind or Solar is competitive and provides for more financial support. Thirdly, it generates revenues for governments, which I would distribute as a capitation fee. This would protect poorer households from higher energy prices and a socially responsible Transition. Studies of MCC show that even a low price that could Finance CO2 in many countries, universal access to clean water and sanitation (Nature Climate Change: Jakob et al., 2015). So climate policy would be a success story.

According to above Link, copy Link

“Everything is re-built, should CO2 be free”

Niklas Höhne, Director of the New Climate Institute, Berlin, and Professor at the University of Wageningen, the Netherlands

Niklas Höhne of the New Climate Institute, has co-founded. © Katja Inderka

to save the climate, need for reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions to zero, in all sectors and in all countries. Therefore, I would require – if I could – that everything newly built should be emission-free. Now, about the only power plants should be built, the use of renewable energy and any new power plants that use fossil fuels. Starting in the early 2022s, alone electric cars or cars with other CO2 should be sold-free motors. And new industrial plants should be from the year 2025 to be free from carbon dioxide. A clear time plan of when only emission-free technologies to be sold are likely to be, would drive the necessary investment.

The currently implemented climate policy with the largest impact follows this model, even if you start with just a few passes. The first production-ready electric cars, for example, were developed because of the US Federal state of California introduced in the nineties, a quota for emission-free cars (CARB-ZEV). China forces with minimum quotas for the number of new registrations of electric vehicles, the car manufacturers to expand their product range, which is then global. Another example: wind power plants, which were mainly produced in Germany, are now used worldwide – even in countries that due to large coal deposits previously never interested in, such as China, India and Australia.

According to above Link, copy Link

“All countries

Friederike Otto, Executive Director of the Environmental Change Institute of the University of Oxford should create a balance of damage,” England

Friederike Otto © Environmental Change Institute

Think of the forest fires in California in November of this year, or – less dramatically – the heat wave in Germany and the EU this summer. The methods available today allow such events to the man-made climate change attributable to (Annual Review of Environment and Resources: Otto et al., 2017). We simply do not know for what damages and losses of climate change has until now taken care of. It is difficult to solve a Problem that is vague, and often as a pure future problem. All countries should, therefore, create an Overview, so that we can quantify the cost.

new Zealand it has: Floods and droughts, to man-made climate change, are attributable to cost around 120 million dollars per decade (New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute and NIWA, 2018, pdf).

time OnlineKartenJoe Raedle/climate change! What does that mean?

global warming is threatening the world, but how exactly? We will explain weather, climate and why the change is so dangerous.

Please enable JavaScript to this map story shop to view …Please enable JavaScript to load map view history …

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General

tell me why this is a Problem ist:

“climate change is a threat to life and our existence.”Please enable JavaScript to load map view history …

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

The weather

… is the state of the atmosphere at a certain time in a certain place.

What is weather, what is climate?

The climate

… is considered the average weather over a longer period of time, about 30 years.Please enable JavaScript to load map view history …

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

All good

Unfortunately, no: a Lot of damage are no longer change. The earth is warming in any case. Also, the 2°C warming affect Ecosystems around the world and threatening the livelihoods of millions of people. It is only the scale of the disaster can be contained.Please enable JavaScript to load map view history …

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Yes

Hot summer, high water, consequences of climate change.

is True. Many researchers are sure that there is a connection. Europe should not be affected as much as other continents of the earth.Please enable JavaScript to load map view history …

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp share, this card history

Twitter Facebook Google+whatsapp copy link

Please enable JavaScript to load map view history …

According to above Link, copy Link

“We

Hermann Lotze-Campen should reduce meat consumption to 600 grams per week,” Professor for Sustainable land use and climate change at Humboldt-University of Berlin and head of the Research Department II “climate impacts and vulnerabilities” at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

Hermann Lotze-Campen is a host of trained country and studied agricultural Sciences. © PIK/Karkow

About 25 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to food – particularly meat-products (Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Smith et al., 2014). Therefore, we all should implement immediately the 10 rules of the German nutrition society (DGE) – so we go from a healthy mixed diet with a high proportion of fruit and vegetables to feed. The helps Obesity and high blood pressure prevent, slows global warming and reduces nitrogen load on the groundwater considerably. Because most of the nitrogen in agriculture for the cultivation of fodder crops for animals, or is from their manure (The European Nitrogen Assessment, Sutton et al., 2011). People in the rich countries should reduce their meat consumption as soon as possible to 600 grams per week and later to 300 grams per week: For the Germans it would mean to halve the consumption of meat first, and then reduce to two or three small servings a week. At the same time, I would double the research funding for plant-based Alternatives to meat.

According to above Link, copy Link

“It takes public transport and better tele-conferences”

Gabriele Clarissa Hegerl, Professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Gabriele Clarissa Hegerl © Private

I would create a reliable, fast and comfortable public transport, so short-haul flights are unnecessary and a lot more people can commute by public transport. A further very practical measure would be to improve tele-conferences. This could be many trips short-haul and flights to avoid what, in turn, would reduce our CO2 footprint considerably. To dispense air travel is one of the most effective measures, the greenhouse gas emissions of an Individual greatly reduce (Environmental Research Letters: Wynes and Nicholas, 2017).

According to above Link, copy Link

“, Our biosphere needs to be protected, so that it stores carbon”

Yadvinder Malhi, Professor of Ecosystem Science at the University of Oxford, England

ecosystem scientists Yadvinder Malhi © Private

We need to preserve our Ecosystems and to restore, in order to store carbon and absorb, local and regional rainfall regulated remain and the climate is moderate. Our forests and our soils contain a considerable amount of carbon, so the deforestation has a direct effect on our climate. The tropical regions, for example, the motors of the atmospheric circulation. The loss of rain forest is converted into cattle ranches or palm oil plantations, also relates to distant regions, such as Europe, Siberia and North America. Because our Act has not just local consequences. Indirectly, it affects rainfall and cloud formation. Clouds in turn reflect sunlight and cool the planet.

We also need to think more about the restoration of forests and other Ecosystems, in the heavily modified landscapes of Europe. Intact areas, we need to protect, and our political incentives to the North should we change to forest land on abandoned or marginal farmland. Nature is not an external cost factor that can be included in an economic model or omitted. Nature is our most important ally, in order to reduce the extent of climate change and the impact of this change.

brown coal – forest is not the same forest After brown coal mining, forestry, energy companies such as RWE, tens of thousands of hectares. However, the motto has disadvantages.

According to above Link, copy Link

“We need to change our agricultural system,”

Angelika Hilbeck, Institute for Integrative biology of the ETH Zurich, Switzerland

Angelika Hilbeck is working at the ETH Zurich © Private

most of The food we buy in supermarkets come from industrial agriculture, especially in developed countries, but, increasingly, around the world. This Form of intensive agriculture based on chemicals and practices that are energy intensive and harmful to the environment. She is wearing according to the IPCC, to more than 20 per cent of global man-made greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, Working Group III: Mitigation, 2014). Therefore, we need to use agro-ecological production systems. That means that ecological and social conconcepts in the design of food, the management of change and to follow these principles in our agricultural systems.

another consequence: With an improved agriculture, we preserve biodiversity, maintain the fertility of our soils, and thus contribute to feed the world. The UN has reported human rights Council back in 2010. Our agriculture can be as – instead of a Problem of climate change – to be a part of its solution.

According to above Link, copy Link

“products CO2 should label get”

Per Espen Stoknes, author of the book “What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming: Toward a New Psychology of Climate Action”

book author Per Espen Stoknes © Moment Studio

Worldwide should marketed all products and services with a clear identification of their CO2-emissions and their ecological footprint and sold. The life cycle of the product should be easy for consumers to completely understand. Whether it is a product with a positive, neutral or negative footprint, it should also stand out, such as the purchase price. And it should be easy to understand, where and how the products were made and who made them. This could be, for example, with Blockchain databases that keep track of the data and the way of the product and save it. The customers would be made easy to decide in all the markets for more environmentally friendly products, and it would have avoided, that products can be advertised with a sustainable Label, without clear evidence. Greenwashing would no longer be possible.

According to above Link, copy Link

“We are politicians representing our interests need”

Michael E. Mann, Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania

Michael Mann, a climate researcher in the USA © Patrick Mansell, Penn State

In the United States, we currently offer more subsidies for fossil fuels than for renewable energy. This is the opposite of what is needed. We need politicians who represent our interests and not the interests of the fossil fuels. At the Moment, the US government is headed by the latter. My wish, therefore, to the U.S.-Americans who believe that we need to take action on climate change: Make your voice heard. An effective solution must include both personal Actions as well as government policy. But the Former can be promoted by the Latter, so we should focus on to influence the politics. One of these is to choose climate-friendly politicians. This is the most Important thing we can do at the Moment.

global warming Is to be limited? All of the articles on this issue can be found here on the themes page.

According to above Link, copy Link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

  +  80  =  85