> > The question here is "what would constitute adequate action".
> > To my understanding, to avoid the dire consequences the alarmists
> > are predicting, we'd have to go back to pre-industrial levels of
> > emissions, on the order of 1% of current levels. GLOBALLY.
> I don't think anyone is advocating that idea. It is obviously silly.
Yes, you are advocating that very thing. you are just not
admitting it because it is so obviously silly. However, if you look
logically at the science and at the situation, it's the unavoidable
conclusion. your hand-waving below about 75% reduction of emissions is
just that, hand waving intended to distract from the back to the land
results. How do you intend to effect that 75% reduction?
> While stopping net emissions entirely would allow the system to equilibrate
> at preindustrial levels, nobody imagines this is doable in the next century.
>
> Freezing net emissions now and reducing them by 75% over the next century is
> expected to allow thye system to equilibrate at concentrations below double
> the preindustrial background. That is probably the best we can manage, but
> we can only manage it if we take matters seriously now. (Unfortunately,
> because our systems are based on national sovereignty, a fair allocation of
> the costs is very politically problematic.)
Expected by whom?
The problems are not just national sovereignty, there is also
basic human nature to consider. People do not generally give up a good
thing if they've got it, and those who do not have that thing strive
very aggressively to get it. Asking australia and canada (the 2
largest per capita emittors) to lower their emissions doesn't seem to
be having much effect (kyoto and rhetoric aside), and in the meantime,
2.5 billion people are increasing their emissions by 15%/year. It's
stupid even to bother asking china (the largest overall emitter) and
india not to take their place in the modern world.
Freezing net emissions now would be possible *only* with full and
undisputed global cooperation which we aren't likely to get, and
implementation of some technologies which aren't very politically
popular.
Due to the nature of power generation, there is exactly 1
technology currently available that *can* replace coal as a source of
grid electricity (the requirements being that it is available in large
enough quantities, that it's schedulable, and that it's reliable).
That's nuclear, and there's a very great deal of public resistance to
it.
Similarly, due to the nature of transportation, there's exactly 1
technology that has the capability to significantly decrease (although
not eliminate) oil as a transportation fuel. That's plug in hybrids.
The drawback there is that it puts the problem back on the grid power
which in the current environment means more coal which in turn
translates to more carbon, not less.
> Net emissions will eventually be reduced for two reasons: first, the supply
> of fossil fuels is finite. Second, combustion of all fossil fuels in the
> absence of some method for sequestering carbon will likely be so
> catastrophic that it is unlikely that industrial activity will continue
> until we are done using them up anyway. The sooner we act as if they were
> running out, the better off we will be in the long run.
No dispute there. Well before the last of the coal is burned
(1500 years at current rates), the co2 concentration will have become
toxic to mammals.
> The resources we would need to spend to effect a 1 year delay in
> > global warming (which 1 year would be 25 years out due to the
> > commitment and the time it would take to implement the policies) would
> > be far better spent in preparing to deal with the consequences,
> > especially given that the consequences are unavoidable, regardless of
> > what we do about it.
>
> It is the final maximum concentration of greenhouse gases that is the main
> determinant of how much damage we cause. A 1-year delay of the identical
> trajectory is therefore not an especially helpful idea, I agree. However,
> your suggestion is misframed. The question is when we begin the hard work of
> the 75% reduction. Any sensible understanding of the carbon cycle supports
> the intuitively obvious conclusion: the sooner, the better.
You're wrong here, there's a carbon saturation after which it
ceases to be a forcing. Look at any paleoclimate study and you'll see
that the planet has had a mean temperature of 22c for the vast majority
of it's life-span. This obtained whenever the co2 concentration was
above approx 600 ppm. We'll be there before the end of this century if
nothing dramatic changes. This is what I meant by the casual statement
that the results are unavoidable. there isn't time to change that, and
that's the worst case.
Incidently, your suggestion of 75% reduction in 100 years is as
ludicrous as what you read as my "do nothing". for 2 reasons, 1) It
wouldn't produce a stable carbon cycle, the concentration would still
increase. and 2) without a complete changeover to nukes, it is simply
impossible. There is no other tech that can acomplish that much energy
production in a carbon neutral manner.
> Your absolute assertion that we should and must do nothing except adapt
> seems pulled out of a hat. While I dislike the usual economists' analysis,
> it is at least more cogent and less absolutist than the above. If we do as
> you suggest, we will eventually make the earth no more habitable than any
> ordinary planet, Mars, say, and even so we will eventually run out of fossil
> fuels.
Actually, we'll make the earth quite similar to the climate that
produced us to begin with. all the paleo-climate studies also agree
that a hotter, wetter earth with a higher co2 concentration is a pretty
good environment for plants and even some animals.... just humans
aren't one of them.
It wasn't an absolute statement on anything other than that global
warming is a lost cause. There simply is not time between now and when
it becomes irrelovent to effect the required changes. Now for the
record, for reasons other than global warming, I strongly advocate
reducing emissions in the best economical manner, however, as for
climate change and the resulting sea level rise, my best advice both
for you and I and for the policy-makers is:move inland.
> We need one or both of two things: a method or methods for keeping carbon
> out of the air or a strategy or strategies for keeping carbon in the ground.
> Adaptation is inevitable, but shrugging and proposing adaptation misses the
> point.
It may miss the point you are trying to make, but it directly
bears to the situation we find ourselves in. we simply don't have the
resources to both adapt and mitigate, and if we must choose a futile
attempt to mitigate or a potentially messianic attempt to adapt, I know
which I as an engineer choose.
> The rate at which we burn carbon is of great interest to economic thinking,
> which is adamant that something called "economic growth" is a necessity for
> well-being, not just in poor countires but in rich ones as well. It is
> utterly beside the point for the real, physical planet on which we live,
> which mostly thrives or sickens on the total amount of carbon we release
> over time.
Get it straight, the planet is not at risk. Life on earth is not
at risk, only the very most recent set of species is, which happens to
be us. the rest of the eco-system absolutely thrives on atmospheric
co2.
I'm also a little fuzzy on why constant growth is required for
things to continue to be okay, but I do know that economic contraction
turns things to crap in a really big hurry. Ask any russian.
> We need to do everything we can to limit that amount, within the extent
> allowed by other catastrophic risks that we also seem to be navigating
> between. That appears to amount to freezing annual emission rates as soon as
> possible and gradually bringing them down over the next century, and that is
> what all advocates of climate-driven policy except for a few fringe
> back-to-the-land folks are recommending.
Like I said, you might get that past in the west, where no one is
concerned about their next meal, but it'll never fly in the very places
that are currently increasing their emissions.
caveat.
Solar power can produce AT BEST 20% of the grid power (assuming
some monumental breakthroughs, today it's all but worthless).
Wind can produce another 20%.
The 2 together can produce 30% due to the fact that they peak at
different schedules
This is due to the unschedulable, unreliable nature of these
systems. To increase the fraction above that requires storage of the
energy which is inherently expensive and limited.
It is entirely too often that I see people discussing carbon,
economics and energy as though they are separate entities, they aren't.
the reason that we are burning coal and oil today isn't that exxon is
evil, or that bush is an idiot (granted he is), it's that gasoline is a
really first rate transportation fuel, and coal is a really first rate
grid power fuel. Anything else will be less energy efficient, which
translates directly to MORE energy going into the production, which in
turn translates to more emissions. There is EROEI to be considered.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
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/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
