Hi Folks,
I found this JASON study on "Methods for Remote Determination of CO2
Emissions" and here is the link
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/emissions.pdf
One of the conclusions of the study is the need for a $500 sensor which can
be used in a large network. A preliminary proposal for a "Challenge" type
competition is mentioned.
On Mar 14, 2011 4:10pm, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote:
Just to note, that even if there were no fossil-fuel CO2 emissions from
the 5.5 or so billion people in the developing world, continued emissions
at the level of emissions of the 1+B or so in the developed world,
climate change would be a pending risk—to keep the CO2 concentration from
changing, emissions need to drop by 80+% or so. Thus, it is really our
choices that are critical—a small number of people could also cause a
significant impacts (CFC use being another example). So, let's not try
blaming others—developed nations made an unfortunate choice (and that
this was the case was recognized quite a few decades ago—so, even if
necessary at the start, the level of emissions could have been a good bit
lower) and developing nations are just following our unfortunate
example—and now we all need to change where our energy comes from.
Developed nations need to demonstrate that a modern economy can prosper
with low fossil fuel emissions—until committed to that, preaching to
others is rather hypocritical.
Mike MacCracken
On 3/14/11 3:02 PM, "Ken Caldeira" [email protected]> wrote:
Steve,
The world may well be a better place with an order-or-magnitude fewer
people, and this would markedly diminish environmental problems.
However, in the next decades the increase in emissions tied to population
growth is likely to be substantially less than 50% (ie, a factor of 1.5),
whereas per-capita development at 3% per year sustained for a century is
approximately a factor of 20.
So, population growth without development might increase emissions by a
factor of 1.5. Development without population growth might increase
emissions by a factor of 20. Together, they would increase emissions by a
factor of 30. If we want to knock that 30 down to a factor of 0.5 or 0.1
or 0.01, we will need to depend heavily on technological innovation.
Population measures just don't give us all that much leverage.
So, it is important to recognize the role of population, but we should
not neglect the other processes driving increased resource use and
pollution creation.
Best,
Ken
___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 [email protected]
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM, [email protected]> wrote:
Many thanks for all Ken, Mike, Andrew, John Latham, John Gorman and other
colleagues are doing to protect biodiversity from massive extinction and
preserve Earth's ecology from irreversible degradation.
I hope it is all right for me to post now here a presentation on the
issue of population, that appears to have everything to do with climate
change.
As humanity's most luminous beacon of truth, science provides us with a
last best hope for the survival of life as we know it on Earth. We must
make certain that scientific evidence is never downplayed, distorted and
denied by religious dogma, politics or ideological idiocy.
Let us not fail for another year to acknowledge extant research of human
population dynamics. The willful refusal of many too many experts to
assume their responsibilities to science and perform their duties to
humanity could be one of the most colossal mistakes in human history.
Such woefully inadequate behavior, as is evident in an incredible
conspiracy of silence among experts, will soon enough be replaced with
truthful expressions by those in possession of clear vision, adequate
foresight, intellectual honesty and moral courage.
Hopefully leading thinkers and researchers will not continue supressing
scientific evidence of human population dynamics and instead heed the
words of Nobel Laureate Sir John Sulston regarding the emerging and
converging, human-driven global challenges that loom ominously before
humankind in our time, “we've got to make sure that population is
recognized.... as a multiplier of many others. We've got to make sure
that population really does peak out when we hope it will.”
Sir John goes on, “what we want to do is to see the issue of population
in the open, dispassionately discussed.... and then we'll see where it
goes.”
In what is admittedly a feeble effort to help John Sulston fulfill his
charge to examine all available scientific evidence regarding human
population dynamics, please give careful consideration to the following
presentation and then take time to rigorously scrutinize the not yet
overthrown science from Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel regarding
human population dynamics and human overpopulation.
http://www.panearth.org/GPSO.htm
Please accept this invitation to discern the best available science of
human population dynamics and human overpopulation; discover the facts;
deliberate; draw logical conclusions; and disseminate the knowledge
widely.
Thank you,
Steve Salmony
-----Original Message-----
From: John Latham [email protected]>
To: [email protected]; Ken Caldeira [email protected]>
Cc: Climate Intervention [email protected]>;
geoengineering [email protected]>; Andrew Lockley
[email protected]>; Mike MacCracken [email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [geo] MERGING 'climateIntervention' AND 'geoengineering'
GOOGLE GROUPS BACK INTO [email protected]>
Hello All,
Absence of perfection in any human activity involving
more than one person (at most) is virtually inevitable.
Overall,I have found the blogs that Ken initiated to be of
great value in many ways, and in my view we owe him
a hearty vote of thanks, which should also be extended
to those others who have devoted a lot of time to keeping
them running.
Cheers, John. [email protected]
Quoting Ken Caldeira [email protected]>:
> Folks,
>
> The experiment to separate the group into
> and seems to have failed in a morass
> of confusion and redundancy.
>
> The original idea was to have one group be more lax, and open to
> climate-related discussions and so on, retaining the other for more
> narrowly-focused academic announcements and discussion.
>
> The idea is now is to admit defeat and merge both groups back into the
> original [email protected]>.
>
> The revamped [email protected]> will relax its moderation
> criteria to be open to geoengineering-related discussion that is not
> narrowly focused on geoengineering. However, moderation may be slightly
> tighter than with the existing group.
>
> Therefore:
>
> 1. If you are
> (a) a member of [email protected]> and
> (b) you are not a member of [email protected]> and
> (c) would like to continue receiving relevant email,
> please sign up to [email protected]>. You can do
> this by sending an email to [email protected]>.
>
> 2. Andrew Lockley will do the heavy lifting of day-to-day moderation,
with
> Mike MacCracken and me filling in when Andrew is busy, on vacation, etc.
>
> 3. will continue running in parallel for a month or
> so, but people who post to this group will be reminded to switch over to
> [email protected]>.
>
> We hope this better meets the need of this community.
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
> (following discussion with Andrew Lockley and Mike MacCracken)
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected]
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
--
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.
--
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.
