If the world waits until 2020 for a new climate change agreement it will be too late to keep global warming at moderate levels, The Guardian reported.
Global governments are working with the United Nations to come up with a deal that would lower emissions, but it would not be signed until about 2015 and wouldn't be put into action until 2020. Experts say this is not good enough.
While many countries are trying to regulate their greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say the current emission goals are not enough to keep global warming from reaching a rate of more than 2C above pre-industrial levels. A rise of CO2 that reached higher levels would most likely be irreversible and definitely catastrophic.
A report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), Carbon Dioxide emissions rose in 2012 by about 31bn tonnes, that's about 1.4 percent. Last year the emissions from Japan rose by six percent, due to the phase out of nuclear power. China's emissions also increased, but it was the smallest increase that has occurredin several years.
Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA claimed greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise at an alarming rate and if something is not done in the near future, the world will be on track for 5C warming, which would be extremely dangerous.
"I am very worried about the emissions trends. The chance of keeping to 2C is still there, technically, but it is not very great. It is becoming extremely challenging," said Birol.
Birol has urged officials to make drastic changes to save the Earth from 5C warming. Some options they have would be to: Use low-carbon power instead of fossil fuels, end construction of power plants that don't meet environmental needs, and get rid of fossil fuel subsidies to reduce emissions as quickly as possible at a low fiscal cost.
"This will not harm economic growth, and they are policies that can be taken in a fragile economic context," Birol stated.
Taking action now would also cost less than if we were to wait until 2020. The IEA has calculated that making clean energy investments now would cost about $1.5 trillion, while in 2020 it could cost as much as five trillion dollars.
The emission levels in the U.S did drop by 3.8 percent due to shale gas replacing coal, the levels are now where they were in the mid 1990s.
Birol said this would not be enough on a global level, even if the rest of the world switched to shale gas. "Shale gas is not a panacea. It can only be helpful if we see these other low-carbon technologies also [coming into widespread use] if we are serious about 2C," he said.
Lord Stern of Brentford, who wrote the "Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change," claimed that global governments were doing themselves a serious disservice by dragging their feet on making important environmental policy changes.
"Government-induced policy risk from lack of clarity on energy and climate policy is, in many parts of the world, a major deterrent to long-term investment," he said. "This is surely unacceptable at a time of idle resources, low interest rates, strong liquidity within much of the private sector, attractive medium-term prospects for low-carbon growth and a climate at great risk."
Lord Stern also warned the IEA has made statements on the dangers of locking in fossil fuel infrastructure. This would need to be stopped as soon as possible, with a high cost.
"In order to meet the 2C target," Stern said. "The IEA's message is crystal clear: dither and delay in making the transition to a low-carbon energy system will be risky and expensive."
