Carbon emissions

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:51 am

The government's climate change bill does not go far enough in cutting emissions.

60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.

2050

Your thoughts?

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:59 am

Have a quick look at the emissions themselves:

The language employed is itself misleading. To talk of a "cut in emissions" ignores the fact that the actual level of carbon dioxide pollution will still continue to rise year on year even after the 60% target cut has been met.

What no politician has dared go near so far is the need to reduce the existing pollution level as well as the emission rate itself.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:17 am

Hiya, I am of the fairly considered opinion that as regards to all this stuff, we are in pretty serious trouble, and I am not sure that its not already quite late in the day to do much to mitigate whats going to happen over the next 50 years, its actually very depressing, made infinitely more so by the fact that it is not generally realized yet that the link between CO2 and global warming is now a scientific consensus, as is the fact that warming is happening now, this year and over the past 30 years, not in 20 years time or 10, we will probabaly start to have some really significant climate impacts in the next decade and certainly over the next 20 years, in my opinion (as opposed to the relatively minor ones we have experienced over the past 10 years, and the more alarming scearios seem to be more likely as time passes, I am not sure what they are going to be, but I don't think that they will be minor problems that we will all face. Gloomy I know, but I am being honest.

As to cutting the CO2 emissions, I am not sure, its actually a very tough challenge, certainly if you are trying to maintain a 3 to 4 percent level of economic growth. I think on the positive side, people are taking this far more seriously than before, (which is probably because the initial stages of global warming are becomming obvious to everyone), and that more pressure is going to be applied politically, and on a corporate level to do something, whether this will be too little to late, well thats quite likely now, and I am tending to think its already too late to really avoid the worst to be honest, but thats no excuse to not try to affect positive change.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:29 am

People have very little conception of inertia.

Imagine an elephant fitted with skates being pushed by several hundred people on a huge rink. The elephant has started to move. Cutting emissions is like pushing less hard, but the elephant's still going to accelerate toward the horizon.

Nobody is even talking about standing in the way of the elephant and pushing the other way yet. How do you propose to bring the elephant to a standstill?

The friction of the elephant's skates on the ice, by the way, is the analogue of the planet's ability to absorb the carbon dioxide pollution.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:31 am

spot;654296 wrote: People have very little conception of inertia.

Imagine an elephant fitted with skates being pushed by several hundred people on a huge rink. The elephant has started to move. Cutting emissions is like pushing less hard, but the elephant's still going to accelerate toward the horizon.

Nobody is even talking about standing in the way of the elephant and pushing the other way yet. How do you propose to bring the elephant to a standstill?

The friction of the elephant's skates on the ice, by the way, is the analogue of the planet's ability to absorb the carbon dioxide pollution.

I absolutely agree, thats why I think we are in pretty serious trouble, because the scale of the problem is such that half measures will not really avail us of much, while full meaures are such that almost no politicians will be prepared to contenance them until far too late in the day. Then there is the reality that in truth our current society is so dependent on fossil fuels and high economic growth rates that its hard to see how to change that without there being a general systems collapse and that would be as bad for individuals as climate change itself, so its a little like being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. (quite literally in this case, funnily enough). But be assured that one way or another the situation will move on, what that will mean for us all, thats more hard to guess.

SlipStream · Post by **SlipStream** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:39 am

we kick a lot of crap out into the air.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:23 am

SlipStream;654359 wrote: we kick a lot of crap out into the air.

Nearly all of it, with the exception of carbon dioxide and methane, reduces global warming. Maybe we add more crap?

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:25 pm

spot;654290 wrote: Have a quick look at the emissions themselves:

What no politician has dared go near so far is the need to reduce the existing pollution level as well as the emission rate itself.

OTOH the Governor of California (recognisable the world over because of his previous job pretending to be a killer robot) has set some ambitious, targets that, if the world were to copy would probably stop CO2 concentration increases in 2050:

By 2010 - Reduce to 2000 Emission Levels

By 2020 - Reduce to 1990 Emission Levels

By 2050 - Reduce to 80% Below 1990 Levels

However, they don't seem to be achieving the reduction rate required to meet the 2010 target. Still kudos for rhetoric, I say. Although meeting the targets might be a headache; "eats naught air too-mar!!"

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:19 am

This is not a third party issue where we all get to sit back and wait for someone to do something somewhere. ‘The Governments promises to reduce carbon emissions ¦..’ is mostly talk.

The number one contribution to carbon emissions into the air is the motor vehicle. If you want to take this seriously and do something about it then it start with you, not the government¦stop driving, get rid of your car, start walking or cycling or taking public transport. This is what will be required for real change.

Unfortunately our entire ‘western civilization’ is built on mass transport, and I for one being totally honest, currently own two cars and do not see myself in the near future getting rid of either of them.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:12 am

mikeinie;655629 wrote: Unfortunately our entire ‘western civilization’ is built on mass transport, and I for one being totally honest, currently own two cars and do not see myself in the near future getting rid of either of them.
You need to develop a cleaner engine than a petroleum one then.

Zero emission choices are Battery-electric and Compressed air.

Hydrogen combustion (or fuel cell) technology is pending.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:46 am

mikeinie;655629 wrote: I for one being totally honest, currently own two cars and do not see myself in the near future getting rid of either of them.It's a pact with Nature - "you let me drive this car and I'll let you kill my grandchildren".

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:40 am

buttercup;654286 wrote: The government's climate change bill does not go far enough in cutting emissions.

60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.

2050

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are just this.

We are trying over here........

The US is and has been reducing their output while still producing record GNP results.......

The US Energy Information Administration released its carbon-dioxide emission figures for 2006 this week, revealing a 1.3% drop.

Within hours, the White House issued a statement from President George W. Bush, stating that he was "pleased" to receive the EIA's report.

Bush goes on to say: "Since [2002], we have moved forward with an effective climate change policy that is science-based, encourages research and investment in the technologies needed to solve the problem, and takes advantage of the power of markets.

We are effectively confronting the important challenge of global climate change through regulations, public-private partnerships, incentives, and strong economic investment."

Bush picks up on the EIA's statement that the carbon intensity of the US economy (the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of GDP) fell by 4.5% in 2006. This is in keeping with the current trend, and could be seen to support Bush's claim that his administration is "effectively confronting the important challenge of global climate change through regulations, etc".

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:55 pm

BTS;656226 wrote: The US Energy Information Administration released its carbon-dioxide emission figures for 2006 this week, revealing a 1.3% drop.
Is this the first drop?

I noticed that last year there was an increase, and that the USA is about 20% above 1990 levels where Europe is about at 1990 levels.

Still if a 1.3% drop per year can be sustained, the 80% drop estimated to be required to stop pushing the elephant will be achieved in log(0.2)/log(0.987) = 123 years.

Better photograph animals so that your grandchildren believe that they existed.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:40 pm

spot;654290 wrote: Have a quick look at the emissions themselves:

The language employed is itself misleading. To talk of a "cut in emissions" ignores the fact that the actual level of carbon dioxide pollution will still continue to rise year on year even after the 60% target cut has been met.

What no politician has dared go near so far is the need to reduce the existing pollution level as well as the emission rate itself.

Is this CO2 by human or CO2 by rainforest? What part of the Earth are we talking about? The upper, middle, or lower atmosphere - or are you just talking about the air we breathe in general? Do you really think that what we do in the first few miles affects our atmosphere? Have you read the reports coming from the space station or the shuttle missions? Do you really have an idea of what makes our Earth's atmosphere work? I want your credentials.

Get a f'ing grip.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 pm

nvalleyvee;656989 wrote: Is this CO2 by human or CO2 by rainforest?

It is essentially all from fossil fuel combustion to date.

This has been established a number of ways. (As this letter to physics today briefly describes.)

nvalleyvee;656989 wrote: What part of the Earth are we talking about?
The troposphere.

nvalleyvee;656989 wrote: Do you really think that what we do in the first few miles affects our atmosphere?

There is absolutely no doubt of that. The carbon released by fossil fuel combustion is more than enough to account for the ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration:

And as noted above, the carbon flux into the atmosphere is all from fossil fuel combustion.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:53 am

nvalleyvee;656989 wrote: Is this CO2 by human or CO2 by rainforest? What part of the Earth are we talking about? The upper, middle, or lower atmosphere - or are you just talking about the air we breathe in general? Do you really think that what we do in the first few miles affects our atmosphere? Have you read the reports coming from the space station or the shuttle missions? Do you really have an idea of what makes our Earth's atmosphere work? I want your credentials.

Get a f'ing grip.
What I tend to do, NV, when a graph puzzles me, is to read the words along the edges. Ready?

"Is this CO2 by human or CO2 by rainforest?"That's a puzzler. What's CO2 by rainforest? What does CO2 by human mean? I'll take a guess. CO2 by rainforest is the carbon dioxide that's no longer being captured from the atmosphere and turned into greenery because the rainforests are being McBulldozed? The graph's not about that, NV. It says it's "Carbon Emissions From Fossil Fuel Burning". It's how many tons of carbon have been taken from long-term millions-of-years-old solid store ("fossil"), like coal and oil, and turned into gas in the atmosphere ("emission"). Now, "Is this CO2 by human?" You tell me an alternative mechanism by which all that coal and oil got burned, if it's not "CO2 by human".

"What part of the Earth are we talking about?" is simpler. Global, it says. First word.

"The upper, middle, or lower atmosphere - or are you just talking about the air we breathe in general?" - none of those things. What the graph shows is all of the fossil fuel that has been turned to gas and ash. It has units of "Million Tonnes Carbon Equivalent", so it's not the mass of all the coal and gas, it's the mass of all the carbon that used to be in the fossil fuel that was burned. All of it ended up in the atmosphere. It's a very simple little graph. There are other graphs which show other things related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They all share the same gross attribute of rocketing skyward along the right hand edge.

"Do you really think that what we do in the first few miles affects our atmosphere?" I fear so, NV. It's where we live, after all. What's a good ballpark figure... 60% of all the air is lower than the top of Everest? But the graph doesn't discuss that.

"Have you read the reports coming from the space station or the shuttle missions? Do you really have an idea of what makes our Earth's atmosphere work?" Now you're going off at a tangent. You'll have to tell me which reports you're discussing, and what "an idea" consists of. I've described aspects of the atmosphere to eight year olds - the water cycle, specifically - and had them talking about it among themselves for weeks afterward. It was a fairly explicit and shocking description, they enjoyed that.

"I want your credentials." When your crazed and rudderless government outlaws opinion, informed or otherwise, do please let me know.

If, on the other hand, you want the credentials of the compiler of the graph, that's there in the words along the edges as well. It has the authority of the Earth Policy Institute, and summarises data provided to them by Worldwatch, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and our very own heartless multinational British Petroleum.

Now, to get back to my point: what I illustrated with that very uncontentious graph, the trend of which I would have thought nobody outside of a mental institution would challenge, is that emissions have gone up in recent decades. The current proposal is to cut emissions to 60% of the 1990 global level - which is why I showed the graph. To talk of a "cut in emissions" ignores the fact that the actual level of carbon dioxide pollution will still continue to rise year on year even after the 60% target cut has been met.

My final point remains undiscussed so far. What no politician has dared go near yet is the need to reduce the existing pollution level as well as the emission rate itself. The proposal to reduce emissions to 60% of 1990 levels is a trivial move toward correction. The call of the environmental movement to reduce emissions by 90% also misses the point that a 90% reduction still gives a steady increase in the CO2 concentration year by year indefinitely. We need a new word. We should be looking for a net atmospheric carbon dioxide depletion, not a reduced rate of emission.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:33 am

BTS;656226 wrote: The US is and has been reducing their output while still producing record GNP results.......
What the guy in the White House did was to focus on a single line of a somewhat larger report - the line which dipped. It's even dipped before. Last year it hurtled up. Dips are normal. What's the trend?

The 1990-2004 snapshot is worth bookmarking, to keep track. What the weasel-worded President did was to take a report that "U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuels Declined by 1.3 Percent" and ignore the trend. Whoopie-doo, he crowed, we've cracked it, the crisis is over, we won. He doesn't mention that his 2006 figure is the second-highest emission figure on record, with only 2005 registering higher.

What annoys me is the language. It moves from "Through 2006, total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have grown by 17.9 percent since 1990" to suggesting instead that we made so much more stuff with it that actually we're really reducing the problem all the time - ignoring the fact that it's the absolute emission figure which counts, not the efficiency of production. What the world needs is a US recession of such cataclysmic proportions that the absolute emission figure finally plummets, nothing else is going to have an effect in the face of smug Presidential platitudes like "the carbon dioxide intensity of the economy fell by 26.5 percent". That's supposed to mask the reality of a 17.9% increase in emissions and placate the general public? The man's a disgrace.