Emissions in 2020 > emissions in 2010 also assumes that there is
nothing that would limit the material inputs that will lead to those
emissions. You don't have to be a disciple of 'limits to growth' to
recognize that at some point, we'll start bumping our head against a
ceiling determined by the carrying capacity of the planet.
Even the conservative IEA believes that maximum historical production
of liquid fuels ("peak oil") will arrive within the next decade.
If you believe more pessimistic estimates, net production of liquid
fuels has already peaked (2008) and our civilization's near total
dependence on oil for transportation means emissions from the
transportation sector will only shrink going forward.
Whether or not any of this is true is anyone's guess – but it is an
example of an X factor, beyond technology, that is within the realm of
possibility.
(Another, and related, X factor is a second or an ongoing global
recession. Just look at what the one we're in now did to global CO2
emissions.)
In other words, legislation and conservation is not the only thing
that will determine maximum annual CO2 emissions from anthropogenic
sources – in fact these might be the two factors that are *least*
likely to determine the ultimate level of those emissions.
On Oct 30, 8:42 am, Alan Robock <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Dan,
>
> "Dangerous anthropogenic inteference" is now commonly defined as 2°C
> about preindustrial global average temperatures (about 1°C above current
> levels). Certainly it is not a step function, and impacts increase with
> temperature change, and we are already experiencing some. So we need a
> lot of adaptation, too.
>
> Alan
>
> Alan Robock, Professor II
> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected]
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
>
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Dan Whaley wrote:
>
> > Alan,
>
> > I agree that 450 or 500 are theoretically achievable with emissions
> > reductions-- clearly. (Though either would effectively require
> > immediate and aggressive reductions from everyone, now).
>
> > But if we're already seeing impacts we don't like, and we know the
> > impacts considerably lag the forcing, what leads us to believe these
> > are "acceptable" levels?
>
> > Dan
>
> > On Oct 29, 7:18 pm, Alan Robock <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Dan,
>
> >> Where do you think we need to be? And when? If it is 350 ppm soon, of
> >> course not. That would take massive carbon capture from the atmosphere
> >> and very rapid reductions in emissions. But if you want to stop
> >> somewhere between 450 and 500 ppm, adapt, and then gradually reduce the
> >> concentration with carbon capture, I think we can do that with carbon
> >> capture from the stacks of coal-fired plants, and rapid transition to an
> >> electric economy with solar and wind generation. It would need a
> >> substantial and regular increase in the price of carbon emissions. Not
> >> being a political scientist, I cannot predict how likely this is, not
> >> that political scientists can either, but it is certainly possible.
>
> >> If climate change is the greatest threat to world security, the
> >> resources now being spent on the military (and half of the scientists
> >> and the engineers in the US working for them) can certainly be
> >> redirected to this goal. We need not accept the status quo as a
> >> predictor of the future.
>
> >> Alan
>
> >> Alan Robock, Professor II
> >> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
> >> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
> >> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
> >> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
> >> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected]
> >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
>
> >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Dan Whaley wrote:
>
> >>> While I'll take the wager, I do find it extraordinary, Alan, that your
> >>> statement essentially implies that emissions reductions will get us
> >>> where we need to be. Can you explain your math?
>
> >>> Dan
>
> >>> On Oct 29, 3:14 pm, Alan Robock <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Dear Ken,
>
> >>>> I would like to accept your wager. And I would like to point out that
> >>>> claims that mitigation will be unsuccessful can be used as arguments by
> >>>> those who favor geoengineering, for whatever reason, just like claims
> >>>> that geoengineering would be a good idea lessen the push toward
> >>>> mitigation.
>
> >>>> I am confident that President Obama will lead the US and the planet into
> >>>> a world with incentives for the development of new technologies for
> >>>> using energy more efficiently and using less fossil fuels. My personal
> >>>> carbon footprint is already going down, thanks to incentives from the
> >>>> state of New Jersey, which helped pay for the solar cells on my roof and
> >>>> require the electric company to buy renewable energy certificates from
> >>>> me, and my Prius, which I try not to drive. New Jersey is leading the
> >>>> country in such steps, including the first US offshore wind farm,
> >>>> because of lack of leadership in Washington, but that has all changed
> >>>> now.
>
> >>>> I know mitigation can work, and support Obama's efforts. That is why I
> >>>> do not predict that he will fail and I do not claim that we will soon
> >>>> need geoengineering. Predicting mitigation will be slow helps to slow
> >>>> it down.
>
> >>>> I think you will be surprised how fast China and the US start to use
> >>>> solar and wind power, following Europe's lead. And I don't think that
> >>>> is irrational.
>
> >>>> Alan
>
> >>>> Alan Robock, Professor II
> >>>> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
> >>>> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
> >>>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
> >>>> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
> >>>> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected]
> >>>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
>
> >>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Ken Caldeira wrote:
> >>>>> The "wager" was intended to be rhetorical ... but the point is made ...
>
> >>>>> Most people, even those who work hard to move the planet towards lower
> >>>>> CO2
> >>>>> emissions, have a rational expectation that these emissions will go up
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> the future.
>
> >>>>> Perhaps others would like to go on record here as predicting that global
> >>>>> anthropogenic CO2 emissions will diminish over the next decade. We may
> >>>>> all
> >>>>> want this to happen, but I reckon few are as optimistic as Dan is.
>
> >>>>> ___________________________________________________
> >>>>> Ken Caldeira
>
> >>>>> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> >>>>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
> >>>>> [email protected]; [email protected]
> >>>>>http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
> >>>>> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
