Surprise! There are no quick solutions to our climate problems

A map of the spread of black carbon aerosols.

NOAA

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) may still reign supreme as the poster child for greenhouse warming (and for good reason), but there has lately been growing interest among researchers in so-called "short-lived climate forcers" (SLCFs). As the name suggests, SCLFs, which include the likes of low-altitude ozone (O₃), methane (CH₄) and black carbon (BC), contribute significantly to warming but do not linger in the atmosphere for more than several weeks. They offer a potentially attractive target for efforts aimed at rapidly curbing the impacts of climate change.

Whereas cutting CO₂ emissions is widely seen as a long, arduous slog with few expectations for progress in the short term, some recent studies have  indicated that cutting SCLF emissions could yield results (relatively) quickly in the form of significantly reduced global temperature increases between now and 2050, and the reduced pollution would provide additional benefits. But a study published in this week's issue of PNAS suggests that a strategy aimed solely at cutting SLCF emissions would yield only a modest reduction in global temperature increases by 2050.

The benefits of thinking short-term

A number of papers have touted the benefits of dealing with SCLF emissions. One recent study  indicated that  SCLF controls could significantly reduce global temperature increases between now and 2050. Another study, published several months ago, even predicted that curtailing SCLF emissions could slash the rate of sea-level rise by up to half.