Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[mspohr]

Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air

Spreading rock dust on farmland could suck billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air every year, according to the first detailed global analysis of the technique.

The chemical reactions that degrade the rock particles lock the greenhouse gas into carbonates within months, and some scientists say this approach may be the best near-term way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

[mspohr]

CO2 in Earth's atmosphere nearing levels of 15m years ago

CO2 in Earth's atmosphere nearing levels of 15m years ago

Last time CO2 was at similar level temperatures were 3C to 4C hotter and sea levels were 20 metres higher

“A striking result we’ve found is that the warmest part of the Pliocene had between 380 and 420 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere,” one of the co-authors Thomas Chalk, said. “This is similar to today’s value of around 415 parts per million, showing that we are already at levels that in the past were associated with temperature and sea-level significantly higher than today.”

 

[mspohr]

Protecting 30% of planet could bolster economy, study says

Protecting 30% of planet could bolster economy, study says

Nearly a third of the world’s oceans and land area could be placed under environmental protections without harming the global economy, and even produce bumper economic benefits if the right policies were followed, according to a global assessment.

Anthony Waldron, the report’s lead author, said: “Our report shows that protection in today’s economy brings in more revenue than the alternative and adds revenue to agriculture and forestry, while helping prevent climate change, water crises, biodiversity loss and disease. Increasing nature protection is sound policy for governments juggling multiple interests. You cannot put a price tag on nature, but the economic numbers point to its protection.”

 

[mspohr]

Don't despair: use the pandemic as a springboard to environmental action

Don't despair: use the pandemic as a springboard to environmental action | Carlos M Duarte and others

We are living in a time of environmental anger and despair, and not without cause. Exponential growth of human consumption has led to catastrophic losses of habitats and the decimation and extinction of species. Covid-19, itself a symptom of a world out of ecological balance, has brought not only human tragedy, but also the loss of 2020 as a biodiversity and climate “super year” for planetary assessments and action. The fleeting good environmental news from the shutdown, of wildlife emerging from hiding places and an early precipitous drop in greenhouse gas emissions, has been replaced by a flood of single-use plastics, an outbreak of poaching and deforestation, and attacks on environmental regulations

The world grieves for lost lives and the economic devastation caused by the pandemic. Yet, when the world returns to consider this year’s reboot of global environmental goals, the operating assumptions that confined previous conservation efforts must change. Recovery must be green (and blue, for a healthy ocean) and it must be just, benefiting all. We should not simply dust off plans to address environmental problems from 2020; this crisis is a springboard for bolder solutions to rebuild biodiversity and ecosystems and reverse the effects of the climate emergency.

 

[mspohr]

Coronavirus pandemic prompts record drop in global emissions, study finds

Coronavirus pandemic prompts record drop in global emissions, study finds

The dramatic decline still falls short of the efforts needed to limit global heating to 1.5C by 2050, however. Even if global greenhouse gas emissions were to sustain the 4.6% decline each year, emissions would need to drop another 3% every year between 2020 and 2030 to be on track to limit global warming and avoid the most extreme outcomes of the climate crisis. And emissions will rebound as countries reopen.

Malik said the reductions necessary would require a complete redesign of the economic systems.

“When it comes to the post-pandemic world, I would like to think that perhaps this is an opportunity for us to redesign the systems in a way that they are sustainable and inclusive,” Malik said. “I don’t have a perfect answer to this and I don’t think most people do – it’s a dilemma in our systems.”

 

[mspohr]

G.A.O.: Trump Boosts Deregulation by Undervaluing Cost of Climate Change G.A.O.: Trump Boosts Deregulation by Undervaluing Cost of Climate Change

WASHINGTON — A federal report released on Tuesday found the Trump administration set a rock-bottom price on the damages done by greenhouse gas emissions, enabling the government to justify the costs of repealing or weakening dozens of climate change regulations.

 

[mspohr]

Pandemic shows climate has never been treated as crisis, say scientists

Pandemic shows climate has never been treated as crisis, say scientists

Greta Thunberg and some of the world’s leading climate scientists have written to EU leaders demanding they act immediately to avoid the worst impacts of the unfolding climate and ecological emergency.

The letter, which is being sent before a European council meeting starting on Friday, says the Covid-19 pandemic has shown that most leaders are able to act swiftly and decisively, but the same urgency had been missing in politicians’ response to the climate crisis.

“It is now clearer than ever that the climate crisis has never once been treated as a crisis, neither from the politicians, media, business nor finance. And the longer we keep pretending that we are on a reliable path to lower emissions and that the actions required to avoid a climate disaster are available within today’s system … the more precious time we will lose,” it says.

 

[mspohr]

The US is headed for climate disaster – but Joe Biden's green plan might just work

The US is headed for climate disaster – but Joe Biden's green plan might just work | Art Cullen

“It all starts with the understanding that agriculture is key to getting a handle on climate change,” Vilsack, who was also previously governor of Iowa, told me Wednesday. “We’ve got to use our rural lands more effectively to get agriculture to net-zero carbon.”

Agriculture is a leading contributor to climate change through petrochemical fertilizer over-application, CO2 emissions from ethanol plants, methane from livestock production, and soil degradation. Vilsack says the sector can be turned into a hero in the climate battle by paying farmers to prevent pollution and sequester carbon.

 

[Kyla S]

Not long ago, I watched a TV program, and the guests said: "Most of us can’t see the Arctic because we don’t have the opportunity to go so far, but our next generation can’t see the Arctic because we don’t have this place."

 

[mspohr]

‘We Essentially Cook Ourselves’ if We Don’t Fix Air Conditioning, Major UN Report Warns

We have the technology to make air conditioners work way more efficiently by switching to more sustainable chemical refrigerants that not only reduce HFCs but carbon dioxide and black carbon emissions and require less energy. The report estimates that doubling the efficiency of air conditioners by 2050 could save us the use of 1,300 gigawatts of electricity around the world. That’s the equivalent of all the coal-fired power generation capacity in 2018 in China and India combined.

 

[mspohr]

Dramatic footage fuels fears Amazon fires could be worse than last year
Dramatic footage fuels fears Amazon fires could be worse than last year

 

[mspohr]

Rich Americans’ homes generate 25% more greenhouse gasses than those less affluent

Rich Americans’ homes generate 25% more greenhouse gasses than those less affluent

Mainly due to the larger size of homes owned by the wealthy, richer Americans are generating roughly 25% more greenhouse gasses through lighting, heating and cooling their residences than poorer people.

This disparity has significant implications for the climate crisis: about a fifth of US emissions comes from residential power use. Americans are particularly voracious users of energy, with the typical person in the US using more than 30 times the amount of electricity at home than the average person in India.

Wealth is not the only demographic divider in the causes of climate change in the US – previous research has shown white people disproportionally affect the environment by eating more foods that are produced with large amounts of water and planet-warming gases, such as milk and beef.

 

[SageBrush]

Rich Americans’ homes generate 25% more greenhouse gasses than those less affluent

I'm surprised the difference is only 25%. Either the tally is off, or the rich offset more of their convenience by efficiency measures and self-generation. I live in an affluent neighborhood, and typical home sizes are ~ double the lower side of the middle class.

If anything, the data points to a too often ignored side effect of efficiency and inexpensive self-generation: consumption rises in lock step because people in general consume up to a certain cost, not by amount. They find ways to consume more if the energy is cheap. The only solution I know of is a carbon tax.

 

[mspohr]

I'm surprised the difference is only 25%. Either the tally is off, or the rich offset more of their convenience by efficiency measures and self-generation. I live in an affluent neighborhood, and typical home sizes are ~ double the lower side of the middle class.

If anything, the data points to a too often ignored side effect of efficiency and inexpensive self-generation: consumption rises in lock step because people in general consume up to a certain cost, not by amount. They find ways to consume more if the energy is cheap. The only solution I know of is a carbon tax.

They used poverty level as the dividing line between rich and poor so that's a low threshold.

 

[SageBrush]

They used poverty level as the dividing line between rich and poor so that's a low threshold.

So anybody above poverty level is 'affluent' ?

Right

 

[mspohr]

Climate Change Poses ‘Systemic Threat’ to the Economy, Big Investors Warn Climate Change Poses ‘Systemic Threat’ to the Economy, Big Investors Warn

Climate change threatens to create turmoil in the financial markets, and the Federal Reserve and other regulators must act to avoid an economic disaster, according to a letter sent on Tuesday by a group of large investors.

“The climate crisis poses a systemic threat to financial markets and the real economy, with significant disruptive consequences on asset valuations and our nation’s economic stability,” reads the letter, which was signed by more than three dozen pension plans, fund managers and other financial institutions that together manage almost $1 trillion in assets

 

[mspohr]

So anybody above poverty level is 'affluent' ?

Right

Not affluent, just not poor.

 

[SageBrush]

Not affluent, just not poor.

What other grouping is there in the study ? I thought they compared 'affluent' to not 'affluent'

 

[Dr. J]

Rich Americans’ homes generate 25% more greenhouse gasses than those less affluent

Rich Americans’ homes generate 25% more greenhouse gasses than those less affluent

Mainly due to the larger size of homes owned by the wealthy, richer Americans are generating roughly 25% more greenhouse gasses through lighting, heating and cooling their residences than poorer people.

This disparity has significant implications for the climate crisis: about a fifth of US emissions comes from residential power use. Americans are particularly voracious users of energy, with the typical person in the US using more than 30 times the amount of electricity at home than the average person in India.

Wealth is not the only demographic divider in the causes of climate change in the US – previous research has shown white people disproportionally affect the environment by eating more foods that are produced with large amounts of water and planet-warming gases, such as milk and beef.

What other grouping is there in the study ? I thought they compared 'affluent' to not 'affluent'

Here's the article: The carbon footprint of household energy use in the United States.

We compare GHG emissions for high-income and low-income ZIP codes, using the federal poverty thresholds (30). ....We find a strong positive correlation (0.57) between per capita income and floor area per capita (FAC) (m2/cap) (Fig. 2B). The tendency for affluence and FAC to increase together is a key emissions driver for wealthier households.

It's a broad statistical analysis.

 

[mspohr]

What other grouping is there in the study ? I thought they compared 'affluent' to not 'affluent'

They compared "poor" to "not poor" using the Federal Poverty Guidelines averaged by Zip code.