Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Raffy.Roma]

agreed.....I wish we could take politics out of it and be able to show people what's really going on, but it seems too ingrained for that to happen. I try though......

@tigerade and ggies07

Never give up my friends.

 

[tigerade]

BP's own analysis says that CO2 emissions will likely soar 30% by 2035, coal use in developing countries leading the charge, as well as more carbon-intensive oil sands extraction.

A disasterous +4C of warming seeming like the most likely scenario at this point.

BP calls for global carbon price to avoid the | Vancouver Observer

 

[Raffy.Roma]

BP's own analysis says that CO2 emissions will likely soar 30% by 2035, coal use in developing countries leading the charge, as well as more carbon-intensive oil sands extraction.

A disasterous +4C of warming seeming like the most likely scenario at this point.

BP calls for global carbon price to avoid the | Vancouver Observer

I believe this is true. As I said in my previous posts I expect in the best case CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to rise to 450 ppm in 2050 but such a concentration could also rise to 550 ppm in 2050.

IMO we are forced to look for methods to extract CO2 from the atmosphere (geoengineering) to avoid a disasterous +4C of warming.

 

[ggies07]

BP's own analysis says that CO2 emissions will likely soar 30% by 2035, coal use in developing countries leading the charge, as well as more carbon-intensive oil sands extraction.

A disasterous +4C of warming seeming like the most likely scenario at this point.

BP calls for global carbon price to avoid the | Vancouver Observer

wow. impressed they would come out and say this....

 

[tigerade]

wow. impressed they would come out and say this....

My understanding is that Exxon quietly supports a carbon tax. Perhaps oil companies have reasoned that worldwide catastrophe would be bad for future profit growth.

Now, if we can only we can win over the climate denial army. Pretty sad that our fate rests in the hands in these simpletons.

 

[dhrivnak]

BP's own analysis says that CO2 emissions will likely soar 30% by 2035, coal use in developing countries leading the charge, as well as more carbon-intensive oil sands extraction.

Not sure it is fair to lay the blame on developing countries. We in the USA average 17 tons/person compared to 5 in China and 1.4 in India. It is we in the developed countries that have the resources to show a CO2 free future. With world wide rates growing at 2 PPM/year and accelerating we will likely be above 450 ppm by 2050.

But let's use our resources like Elon is doing, to show others how we can live carbon free. With our rooftop solar and EV we have cut ours 65%. When we trade in the Prius on a plug-in we can reach an 80% reduction. Now just to get all of our neighbors to do the same. Then we can work on Congress.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Not sure it is fair to lay the blame on developing countries. We in the USA average 17 tons/person compared to 5 in China and 1.4 in India. It is we in the developed countries that have the resources to show a CO2 free future. With world wide rates growing at 2 PPM/year and accelerating we will likely be above 450 ppm by 2050.

But let's use our resources like Elon is doing, to show others how we can live carbon free. With our rooftop solar and EV we have cut ours 65%. When we trade in the Prius on a plug-in we can reach an 80% reduction. Now just to get all of our neighbors to do the same. Then we can work on Congress.

While I don't disagree with your view that the developed economies need to take a strong leadership role here, I think that the focus on how the developing world develops is appropriate. When you build a new power plant, that plant is likely to be around 40 years (or more) from now. It's cheaper to steer new investment into low-carbon options rather than to replace still-useful but high-carbon capital investments in developed countries.

Put simply, it's easier to stay thin than to go from being obese to thin. The developed economies need to go on a diet, but the developing countries should avoid buying a wardrobe of size XXXL clothes.

 

[hcsharp]

agreed.....I wish we could take politics out of it and be able to show people what's really going on, but it seems too ingrained for that to happen. I try though......

Too ingrained? Not a coincidence. When you are able to dump $457,000,000 into a superpac in one year that does nothing but create propaganda to get your message "ingrained" in peoples' heads, it's no wonder everyone doesn't become a denier. We keep trying. We drive electric. We do what we can.

 

[RichardC]

Too ingrained? Not a coincidence. When you are able to dump $457,000,000 into a superpac in one year that does nothing but create propaganda to get your message "ingrained" in peoples' heads, it's no wonder everyone doesn't become a denier. We keep trying. We drive electric. We do what we can.

I agree. Each of us can drive change in many ways. My top three: Example, Education and Advocacy.

What You Can Do To Make the World a Better Place for Your Children and Grandchildren

Example
It is possible for each of us, especially homeowners, to eliminate a large majority of our GHG emissions. For example, with the following three modest changes:

1. Switch to and/or support green electricity
2. Drive electric
3. Use heat pump technology for heating (as well as cooling)

I will provide further information in a subsequent post.

Education
There is a vast amount of information available of the Internet. If you follow this thread and review past postings you have already been exposed to many good resources, and seen the denier arguments and rebuttals. I posted a compilation of references at: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...arming-Discussion/page126?p=607949#post607949 many more can be found through this thread. Educate yourself and then be prepared to educate others. The Skeptical Science site: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ is a great one-stop-shop for cogent rebuttals of the nonsense which is regularly put forward by deniers in an effort to create the impression of doubt where none in fact exists.

Advocacy
Advocacy and education blend together at the margins. You have a hundred opportunities each day to educate, raise consciousness and to advocate for change. In a car dealership, ask them about their range of electric cars, and let them know that you won't be purchasing any more fossil powered vehicles. When you book a hotel, ask them if they offer electric car charging (even if you are flying) and stay at hotels which make an effort to reduce their carbon footprint. When buying electrically powered devices, ask for Energy Star rated products. When discussing the weather, note current events where climate change is having an impact on people's lives, refer to the increases in your house insurance due to all of the recent flooding costs resulting from climate change, etc. Join and support (physically and financially) organizations which are advocating for intelligent public policy, for example: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/ http://350.org/ http://climaterealityproject.org/ and
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...ur-health.html Further sites are listed at: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...arming-Discussion/page126?p=607949#post607949

In all of this, as referred to above, recognize that a small number of corporations and individuals are positioned to make billions for so long as they can continue to dump their carbon pollution into the atmosphere without charge or restriction. They are prepared to spend and are spending billions to confuse the public and sway politicians. See: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...arming-Discussion/page101?p=541452#post541452 We have three things on our side: science, the truth and the public interest, and we have an obligation to our children and grandchildren to do what we can to make a difference, for the good.

 

[tigerade]

While I don't disagree with your view that the developed economies need to take a strong leadership role here, I think that the focus on how the developing world develops is appropriate. When you build a new power plant, that plant is likely to be around 40 years (or more) from now. It's cheaper to steer new investment into low-carbon options rather than to replace still-useful but high-carbon capital investments in developed countries.

Put simply, it's easier to stay thin than to go from being obese to thin. The developed economies need to go on a diet, but the developing countries should avoid buying a wardrobe of size XXXL clothes.

This is a great point but I want to expand on it. I think the whole equation of economic growth needs to be changed, in that in more economic growth means more fossil fuel use. And that is perfectly understandable, that's just the way we've done it for the past century and a half. More economic growth has always meant burning more coal, more gas, more oil. But now, we have to fundamentally change that to prevent severe global warming. We have to tackle the question of how to grow the economy in the 21st century while reducing fossil fuel use at the same time. This is not a trivial problem when 7 billion people are rising, developing countries becoming developed, and hundreds of millions in a new global middle class want refrigerators, cars, air conditioning, meat, etc. And that's perfectly their right, it is not my place to silence human ambition, and after centuries of poverty in some of these countries, I think it's great they are better off. I just hope that it can be done sustainably, other we are really in a lot of trouble.

So to build on what you said originally, we in developing countries have a great place as both an incumbent and an innovator. Our economic influence is enormous and is poorly understood by most Americans. Look at the sanctions placed this week on that one Russian bank. Just the announcement of U.S. sanctions on that one bank was enough to virtually close all operations that the bank had. And we're about 30% of the world's consumer market. If we decide that we're only going to buy low-carbon energy, then the whole world will eventually do that too. That's why I think the battle of global warming will largely be won the United States, and unfortunately that's where the fiercest opponents are.

 

[RichardC]

For a Change - Some Good News Stories

First Solar and GE are getting together to further drive down the cost of utility scale solar PV systems. See: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/20...GN&utm_term=0_b9b83ee7eb-c0b3f54508-331989925

A great example of an American city driving down emissions while growing the economy. See: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/20...GN&utm_term=0_b9b83ee7eb-c0b3f54508-331989925

Exxon is apparently going to address the issue of stranded carbon assets. This will be interesting! See: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/20/exxon-mobil-climate-change-report-business-model

The EU is on track towards meeting its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and for 2020, See: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/g-gas/index_en.htm

Preventing dangerous climate change is a priority for the European Union. The EU recognizes that reining in climate change carries a cost, but that doing nothing would be far more expensive in the long run. In addition, investing in the green technologies that cut emissions will also boost the economy, create jobs and strengthen Europe's competitiveness. See: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm

World Bank chief backs fossil fuel divestment drive - See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/01/27/worl...l-fuel-divestment-drive/#sthash.DCskPUYJ.dpuf

A group of 17 philanthropic groups including the Wallace Global Fund and John Merck Fund with a combined asset base of about $1.8 billion has vowed to divest from fossil-fuel companies and invest in clean-energy technology. See: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...h-1-8-billion-vow-fossil-fuel-divestment.html

 

[Raffy.Roma]

@RichardC

Very good post. I am happy for the EU efforts to reduce GHGs. I am in particular interested in Carbon Capture and Storage which IMO is the key to work out the matter of Climate Change/Global Warming.

Carbon capture and storage

The fourth element of the climate and energy package is a directive creating a legal framework for the environmentally safe use of carbon capture and storage technologies. Carbon capture and storage involves capturing the carbon dioxide emitted by industrial processes and storing it in underground geological formations where it does not contribute to global warming.
The directive covers all CO2 storage in geological formations in the EU

 

[RichardC]

Examples of What You Can Do To Make the World a Better Place for Your Children and Grandchildren

Implementing these three changes, which is completely feasible using cost effective and available technologies, will likely reduce our personal and national GHS's on the order of about 80%.

Switch to and/or support green electricity

1. Since electric power generation accounts for almost 40% of US GHG emissions, the generation and use of green electricity has great potential to reduce our individual and collective carbon footprint.
2. The most rapidly increasingly popular option is the installation of solar panels on your own roof or in your back yard. The options are multiplying as the prices continue to fall (the installed prices for a roof top system are now about a quarter of the levels only four years ago). There are numerous threads on the Forum discussing this option and innumerable sources on the web.
3. Instead and/or in addition, buy green power from a local green power supplier (in this way you are supporting the development of renewable energy sources to displace fossil fuelled power and the corresponding carbon emissions from the grid). For example:
   http://www.bullfrogpower.com/
   http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/buying/
   http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/buying/buying_power.shtml
   http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/
   http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/documents/purchasing_guide_for_web.pdf
   http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=627&t=3
   http://www.mainegreenpower.org/generic/certificates.shtml
   http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/gcleanen.asp
   https://www.greenmountain.com/customer-service/1734-faqs-maryland
   http://www.greenelectricity.org/index.php
   http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/
   http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/energy/greenelectricitysuppliers.aspx
4. Instead and/or in addition, join a renewable energy coop and invest in renewable energy projects in your community. For further information see:
   http://www.cpfund.ca/community-power-sector/community-power-co-ops
   http://www.trec.on.ca/home
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_wind_energy
   http://www.boell.org/downloads/Bilek_EnergyCooperatives.pdf
   http://www.coopscanada.coop/en/orphan/Renewable-Energy
   http://communitypowernetwork.com/node/9220
   http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/pdf/Providing clean energy through cooperatives.pdf
   http://www.cec.org/Storage/88/8461_Guide_to_a_Developing_a_Re_Project_en.pdf

Drive electric

1. Since transportation accounts for almost a third of US GHG emissions, the electrification of transportation using green electricity has great potential to reduce our individual and collective carbon footprint.
2. Tesla, is obviously the preferred, but far from the only, option for personal electric transport.
3. Every car manufacturer is developing electric and/or other alternative fuel powered vehicles. Examples of plug-in and full-electric vehicles include those listed at the following:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_United_States
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_production_plug-in_electric_vehicles
   http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/03/13-electric-vehicles-coming-market-2014/
   http://www.greencarreports.com/news...-guide-every-2012-2013-plug-in-car-with-specs
   http://www.plugincars.com/cars
   http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicle.../electric-cars/electric-vehicle-timeline.html
   http://www.pluginamerica.org/vehicles

Use heat pump technology for heating (as well as cooling)

1. Heat pumps, powered by green electrical energy, can displace and eliminate much fossil fuel emissions (from gas, oil and coal) that are emitted to heat and cool our homes and offices.
2. Heat pumps use the same technology as refrigerators to move heat from cool to warm (against the natural flow of the heat energy). While electrical energy is used to accomplish this result a heat pump will typically obtain two or three times as much heat as the electricity used to run the heat pump. In other words 1000 Watts of energy used by the heat pump will result in 3000 Watts of heat energy. The same heat pump will typically serve to both heat in the winter and cool in the summer. Heat pumps can use either air or liquid as the source of energy and as the recipient of the energy. Geothermal heat pump units used buried pipes, wells or water bodies as the source of heat energy, are typically more efficient that air source heat pumps (which have to extract heat from the air outside the house), but are more costly to install and are limited in their application by the requirement that the system have access to a significant area of land to bury the hose below the frost line, a well or wells or a water body. The performance of geothermal systems is also particular to the heat storage and transfer characteristics of the buried coils or wells, whereas an air-source heat pump can be installed in the same locations as an air conditioner.
3. While the unit that I have been using, with success, as our primary heating system for the past six years, namely the Hallowell Acadia, is no longer on the market, the technology that it used, namely a booster compressor, has been demonstrated to work well, as has the use of variable speed compressors, as are used on the Mitsubishi cold weather heat pump and an increasing range of other new cold weather heat pump units.
4. The following materials describe the technology and some studies which have confirmed the viability of cold weather heat pumps to produce heat effectively at air temperatures as low as -15 to -25 degrees Celsius (5 to -13 degrees Fahrenheit), which are typical of those under which our system has heated our house during this past winter:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_source_heat_pumps
   http://cchrc.org/docs/reports/ASHP_final.pdf
   http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56393.pdf
5. The cold weather heat pumps currently on the market include the following Mitsubishi and Carrier units, and other manufacturers are either manufacturing or are planning to manufacture similar units, which could be successfully used by a vast majority of the population throughout North America. The following is information about the Mitsubishi and Carrier units:
   http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/believe/heatpump/
   http://www.carrier.ca/uploads/CARRIER_Infinity_Product_Backgrounder_EN_Final_.pdf
6. The following further discuss the pros and cons of the use of air source heat pumps for cold weather heating:
   http://www.squidoo.com/air-source-heat-pumps-for-cold-weather
   http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomkonr...s-a-threat-to-geothermal-heat-pump-suppliers/
   http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/qa-spotlight/air-source-or-ground-source-heat-pump
   http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...ps-a-threat-to-geothermal-heat-pump-suppliers
7. The following are recent pictures of our Hallowell Acadia unit, still generating heat after the most intense Canadian winter in living memory (and highlighting the importance of the use of snow stands in Northern climes):

 

[justaddsun]

Thx, @RichardC, very useful.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Thx, @RichardC, very useful.

The same.

 

[tigerade]

Shifts in rainfall, not warming pause, slow sea level rise - Yahoo News

OSLO (Reuters) - Heavy rains from the Amazon to Australia have curbed sea level rise so far this century by shifting water from the oceans to land, according to a study that rejects theories that the slowdown is tied to a pause in global warming.
Sea level rise has been one of the clearest signs of climate change - water expands as it warms and parts of Greenland and Antarctica are thawing, along with glaciers from the Himalayas to the Alps.
But in a puzzle to climate scientists, the rate slowed to 2.4 millimeters (0.09 inch) a year from 2003 to 2011 from 3.4 mm from 1994-2002, heartening skeptics who doubt that deep cuts are needed in mankind's rising greenhouse gas emissions.
Writing in the journal Nature Climate Change on Sunday, experts said the rate from 2003-2011 would have been 3.3 mm a year when excluding natural shifts led by an unusually high number of La Nina weather events that cool the surface of the Pacific Ocean and cause more rain over land.
"There is no slowing in the rate of sea level rise" after accounting for the natural variations, lead author Anny Cazenave of the Laboratory for Studies in Geophysics and Spatial Oceanography in Toulouse, France, told Reuters.

 

[tigerade]

Christiana Figueres: We’ll Have a Global Climate Treaty in 2015

Global climate treaty: U.N.ll have an agreement in Paris in 2015.

Confidence I do not share. A treaty requires two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. I think it would be easier to move an avalanche up-hill than it would be to get the Republican party and fossil-fuel friendly Democrats to vote for this thing, especially if it's a Republican-controlled Senate next year (which it may very well be).

 

[RichardC]

Christiana Figueres: We’ll Have a Global Climate Treaty in 2015

Global climate treaty: U.N.ll have an agreement in Paris in 2015.

Confidence I do not share. A treaty requires two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. I think it would be easier to move an avalanche up-hill than it would be to get the Republican party and fossil-fuel friendly Democrats to vote for this thing, especially if it's a Republican-controlled Senate next year (which it may very well be).

I agree (unfortunately). The Congress and the Senate just undid the one good thing that it had done (which would have passed on at least a small part of the costs of climate change). The changes which Congress had passed in June 2012 to make the federal flood insurance program more viable and accountable to US taxpayers are now being reversed (thereby preventing the affected residents from learning about the true costs of GHG emissions).

The bipartisan reforms phased out subsidies for high-risk coastal properties, which onlookers concerned about climate change said was key to discouraging unsustainable coastal development. It was perhaps the only good thing on climate that Congress had done in a really long time. ...

The 2012 reforms scaled back government subsidies for flood insurance on second homes and on properties damaged repeatedly in floods. Those houses would have seen premium increases of 25 percent per year, until the premiums reached the market cost of the insurance. The goal was to increase premiums for the 400,000 properties that receive the biggest subsidies until their rates reflect actual risk of loss. The law also raised the cap on annual premium increases for all properties, from 10 percent to 20 percent. The changes, advocates said, would help discourage risky development and make would make rates reflect the real likelihood of loss due to flooding.

The change Congress approved last week repeals those changes. Lawmakers who pushed for the reversal declare it a win for homeowners facing large rate increases. But critics say Congress is turning a blind eye to the National Flood Insurance Program's insolvency and the growing risks climate change poses to its viability.

"Congress had a real opportunity here with Biggert-Waters to start to address some of the necessary reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program, both to deal with growing risk from sea level rise as well as development along our coasts," said Rachel Cleetus, a senior climate economist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "But instead they've done what they seem to have perfected -- burying their heads in the sand. They're not dealing with the tough issues here."

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/congress-flood-insurance_n_4981226.html

The taxpayers' subsidies of this flood insurance program may quite appropriately be counted as a part of the direct and indirect billions of dollars in subsidies provided by the US government and citizens to the fossil fuel industry.

Disregarding the unholy cabal in Washington, the passages in Christina's interview which resonated most strongly with me were:

We have to get to the point where each individual, each corporation, each community chooses low carbon, because it makes fundamental sense. It should become a no-brainer. No architect should design buildings that import a huge amount of energy. Each building should produce as least as much energy as it's going to need, and have more to put on the grid. They should be using all of the natural light and natural heat. We shouldn't have stupid cars that use liquid fossil fuels. Come on, how outmoded is that? ...

Apple is a fantastic example. Their CEO Tim Cook was criticized for investing too much in renewables when that is not Apple's main business. He retorted with something like: "If you're a shareholder and you don't like this policy, get out of my shares." That's a tipping point. It's a completely new discussion.

The first of those two quotes reflects the current reality of a growing number of us who are now living largely carbon free, the second reflects the fact that the world's most valuable companies understand that the future is a low carbon one. For the direction of the future would you bet on Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, and Tim Cook on the one hand, or the whole pack of Washington lobbyists and bagmen on the other ... to ask the question is to answer it.

 

[Jeff Miller]

Living near the flood plain of the Des Plaines river near Chicago, I've watched the fate of the Biggert-Waters act closely. From a public choice theory perspective, the partial repeal was, unfortunately, entirely predictable. The people who would have been strongly affected by sharply rising rates screamed at their representatives demanding relief while the vast majority of taxpayers, who do not receive subsidized flood insurance, were silent and mostly ignorant of what is going on. Give a politician with the opportunity to shift costs from an informed, strongly affected, vocal minority to a largely unaware and apathetic majority and they will make the same choice every time. (I've never gotten this insurance myself, having taken steps to flood proof my house, but a lot of my neighbors are affected). That said, it seems rates for many will continue to rise quickly under the revised law:

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-flood-insurance-hikes-still-peril-071913255.html

I agree that this unfortunate aspect of our political system stymies the will to address global warming. It socializes the costs and gives people less incentive to act. I see this very clearly when I speak to farmers here in Illinois. Most of the farmers I've spoken to don't believe in global warming. I can't help but wonder if they'd have a different view if they didn't receive heavily subsidized crop insurance from the federal government.

 

[RichardC]

Climate change has also been cited as a contributing factor in the horrendous mudslide in Washington State.

Landslides cost the nation several billion dollars in damages annually according to the United States Geological Survey, and cause 25 to 50 deaths per year. The Pacific Northwest is predicted to get warmer and wetter according to climate change models, which will likely add to the economic and human costs associated with landslides in the region. The average annual precipitation in Washington has increased by about one-third of an inch each decade since the beginning of the 20th century. Temperature averages have also increased about 1.5°F since 1920, with climate models projecting increases in annual temperature of, on average, 2.0°F by the 2020s, 3.2 °F by the 2040s, and 5.3°F by the 2080s.

“More extreme rain events –- the sudden and intense rain that we’ve been experiencing more frequently so a lot of the state routes are vulnerable to landslides today and the projections are that those will be worse,” Carol Lee Roalkvam, an environmental policy analyst with the Washington State Department of Transportation, told Oregon Public Broadcasting last year.

According to the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, in the near future climate change will cause the region to see less snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and more winter rainfall, leading to more landslides.

See: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...ate_change_may_bring_more_such_disasters.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/cli...mudslide-extreme-weather-makes-deadly-results
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/24/3418117/climate-change-landslides-washington/