-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
It's even simpler. Most of the people don't care about GW. I enquiried on some friends of mine about this matter and they told that a problem tha can arise at the end of this century for mankind isn't interesting for them even if their sons and grandsons will be involved in it.
- - - Updated - - -
This is exactly what I meant. IMO being impossible to work out the Global Warming issue simply by reducing CO2 emissions we need carbon extraction from the atmosphere and capture.
Interesting. Hope that this organization will spread also to Europe soon. I cannot sign up now since I live in Italy.
I'm pretty sure that Raffy is essentially right:
There is zero likelihood that we can reduce emissions sufficiently to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 350 ppm for the foreseeable future (e.g., until some breakthrough like fusion).
If you read the article that wikipedia cited for their 80% number, they were looking at stabilizing the level closer to 550 ppm.
The second quote is from an article with a plan to get under 350 ppm by the end of the century partly by pulling carbon out of the atmosphere (which is currently very expensive).
We're already well above 350 ppm and we keep increasing the amount of carbon we pump into the atmosphere. China alone is responsible for well over 20% of emissions and is increasing its emissions by nearly 10% per year. Even if you got every country in the world except China to stop carbon emissions, you'd still be seriously behind. The USA makes up some 17% of carbon emissions, and while we've stopped our increase in emissions, given what you know of America, what are the chances that my country cuts its emissions by 80% in the next few years? If you said 0.001%, your number is too high.
Here's the thing: if you could prove that a decade at 400 ppm would end "all life on the planet", we might be able to act to get down to 350 ppm. But I haven't seen this; instead, I see reports saying that 550 ppm is worth about 3 degrees C and 15 feet of sea level. That will cause extinction of some species, it will cause serious problems for owners of coastal properties (especially inhabitants of low lying countries), and it will cost significantly more effort to maintain our way of life in these new conditions. But "it will cost more in the future if we don't act now" is simply not a great motivator for political action. especially in a country where only 40% trust science enough to agree that "Human Beings, as We Know Them, Developed from Earlier Species of Animals" is a true statement.
Furthermore, while there's a fair amount of consensus among scientists that the global social cost of carbon ($35/ton or higher) exceeds the cost of global government policies to reduce emissions ($10/ton or lower), it's unclear that today's social cost of carbon to a few nations exceeds the cost to those nations for acting. (If you have contrary evidence, I'd be interested).
Of course, I suspect that geoengineering will be politically difficult, as well. What if Russia doesn't want its sun dimmed by USA-emitted sulfur particles?
I'm glad I don't own oceanfront property.
Anyway, I agree that educating people on the costs of climate change is important. I just think that hoping for 350 ppm before 2050 is a pipe dream.
This is not a joke, a meme, or a hoax. The last half of January was one of the warmest winter periods in #Alaska ever recorded. http://bit.ly/1jcm5XA
https://www.facebook.com/climatereality/photos/a.202486859817966.50855.153278754738777/645781562155158/?type=1&theater
Maybe some TMC Members from Alaska could confirm this fact?
https://www.facebook.com/climatereality/photos/a.202486859817966.50855.153278754738777/645781562155158/?type=1&theater
Maybe some TMC Members from Alaska could confirm this fact?
Another link to make ggies07 angry:
Rhymes with Smokey Joe - YouTube
It's a video tribute to Rep. Joe Barton. I've already hated this guy, but it makes me seethe to see these video clips of him lying through is teeth again. It compares his bullshit about tobacco to his bullshit about climate change. He is the one of the most corrupt people in Washington and that is considering that he's in good company with corrupt people.
Rhymes with Smokey Joe - YouTube
It's a video tribute to Rep. Joe Barton. I've already hated this guy, but it makes me seethe to see these video clips of him lying through is teeth again. It compares his bullshit about tobacco to his bullshit about climate change. He is the one of the most corrupt people in Washington and that is considering that he's in good company with corrupt people.
A quote I saw this morning that I thought was applicable to the discussion:
“Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.” -Muhammad Ali
“Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.” -Muhammad Ali
Confirmed in absolutely every single way you can possibly measure, throughout the entire state. If not for a single 3-5 day cool period just before the last half of the month, effectively the entire winter has been the warmest even the oldest of the old-timers can recall. And Alaska is one place you most definitely don't want to be during a warm winter. It's one thing to be there if it's -40 or -50, but when it's hovering just above and below freezing, it is truly horrific. I've gotten very strong indications that all my Alaskan friends have a $999 billion price on my head for having spent this winter away.
Of course a geoengineering technique with no drawbacks should be studied. IMO none of the techniques mentioned in the article linked are good for the purpose. Research and Development is strongly needed in this field.
But IMO only CO2 emissions reduction is not enough to lower CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and finally we will need some geoengineering technique suitable to this purpose.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
One more example:
The new FWD version of the Jetta SportsWagon/Golf Estate 1.6 TDI 110 PS BlueMotion (diesel) on sale in Europe gets 85,6 mpg[SUB]Imp.[/SUB] combined on the European test cycle. But this version isn't available in the US.
There are a lot of entry level cars on sale in Europe that aren’t even available in the US. If Americans just started demanding these cars instead of what they're currently being offered, CO2-emissions from a lot of new cars could be reduced some 50% overnight.
Edit: Clarified that the mpg-figure for the Jetta SporstWagon/Golf Estate is measured in imperial gallons (mpg[SUB]Imp.[/SUB])
Last edited:
But let's not forget first principles: when you find yourself in a hole, first stop digging. Geoengineering may be the ladder we need to get back to the top of the hole, but the cheapest, most reliable way to get CO2 out of the atmosphere is to stop putting it there.
You are right Robert. Problem is that IMO whatever efforts we will make to reduce CO2 emissions we will not manage to reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Personally as soon as I will have the chance I will buy an electric car and install solar panels on my apartment. And I know that other people in the world will do it. But I am afraid that it will not be enough to lower CO2 concentration in the atmosphere because the CO2 stock in the atmosphere is too big and because unluckily not everybody on the Earth will act as I will. Just my opinion.
Similar threads
