-
-
Greenhouse gas emissions shock scientists
The world pumped up emissions of the chief human-produced global warming gas last year, setting a course that could push beyond leading scientists' projected worst-case scenario, international researchers said Thursday.
The new numbers, which some scientists called "scary," were a surprise because experts thought an economic downturn would slow energy use. Instead, carbon dioxide output rose 3% from 2006 to 2007.
That amount exceeds the most dire outlook for emissions from burning coal and oil and related activities as projected by a Nobel Prize-winning group of international scientists in 2007.
Meanwhile, forests and oceans, which suck up carbon dioxide, are doing so at lower rates, scientists said. If those trends continue, the world will be on track for the highest predicted rises in temperature and sea level.
The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that an increase of between 3.2 and 9.7 degrees Fahrenheit could trigger massive environmental changes, including melting of the Greenland ice sheet, the Himalayan-Tibetan glaciers and summer sea ice in the Arctic.
Corinne Le Quere, professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, said the prediction that current emissions put the planet on track for a temperature rise of more than 11 degrees means the world could face a dangerous rise in sea level as well as other drastic changes.
Richard Moss, vice president and managing director for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund, said the new carbon figures and research showed that "we're already locked into more warming than we thought."
"We should be worried -- really worried," Moss told the Washington Post. "This is happening in the context of trying to reduce emissions."
The new data also shows that forests and oceans, which naturally take up much of the carbon dioxide humans emit, are having less impact. These "natural sinks" have absorbed 54% of carbon dioxide emissions released since 2000, a drop of 3 percentage points compared with the period between 1959 and 2000.
The pollution leader was China, followed by the United States, which past data show is the leader in emissions per person in carbon dioxide output. And although several developed countries slightly reduced output in 2007, the U.S. churned out more.
Still, it was large increases from China, India and other developing countries that spurred the growth of carbon dioxide pollution to a record high of 9.34 billion tons of carbon. Figures released by science agencies in the U.S., Great Britain and Australia show that China's added emissions accounted for more than half of the worldwide increase. China passed the U.S. as the No. 1 carbon dioxide polluter in 2006.
Emissions in the U.S. rose nearly 2% in 2007, after declining the previous year. The U.S. produced 1.75 billion tons of carbon.
"Things are happening very, very fast," Le Quere told the Associated Press. "It's scary."
Gregg Marland, a senior staff scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, said he was surprised at the results because he thought world emissions would drop because of the economic downturn. That didn't happen.
"If we're going to do something [about reducing emissions], it's got to be different than what we're doing," he said.
_______________
Very disappointing. This should be a wake up call to industry and politicians.
The status quo must go. Time to put on more pressure. The world pumped up emissions of the chief human-produced global warming gas last year, setting a course that could push beyond leadin... more -
Do some math on reducing CO2 and get a surprise ...
"If some environmentalists have their way, simple math suggests life as we know it will end ...
Those who view fossil fuel the way Carrie Nation did Demon Rum point out that were everyone on Earth to burn just a gas tank’s worth of carbon each day, CO2 in the atmosphere would still double in a decade. Skeptics may discount climate models as metaphysical, but true believers consider the human costs of prohibition an acceptable price for environmental salvation. Gore’s 2006 Nobel Prize speech elevated environmentalism from a pretext for social intervention to a categorical imperative by declaring: “We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer.…They will not take us far enough without collective action.”
It took two centuries for daily per capita carbon consumption in America to reach the roughly 100-pound level that currently lights homes, powers industry, and keeps the Internet humming. But like driving, all those welcome activities increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The average American currently generates 22 tons of CO2 a year, but to limit 21st century warming to 2.5 degrees Celsius, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests cutting the global rise in CO2 to one part per million by 2050. That’s only a small multiple of the weight of the CO2 people exhale, and realizing this goal within 42 years could require America to burn less carbon in a month than we do now in a day.
This draconian downturn unfolds from a single statistic: the 5-quadrillion-ton weight of Earth’s atmosphere. Your 792,000-ton share of the air may seem hefty, but one part per million of it is less than one ton. Goodbye, central heating; an average New England home furnace belts out six tons of CO2 a year. Ditto private cars; families living on a truly Earth-friendly carbon ration might spend breakfast debating whether to blow their half-pint gasoline coupon on a moped ride to town or use the daily kilowatt-hour allotment to turn the communal electric blanket up to 4. Holiday turkeys may end up as sashimi, since oven roasting could mean a heatless Thanksgiving night or Christmas Eve.
A personal CO2 limit of less than a ton per year does not even imply the right to buy that much fuel, because CO2 is only 27 percent carbon. Multiply your 1,745-pound annual CO2 ration by 27 percent, divide the result by 365 days, and…yikes! It’s 21 ounces of carbon a day—and falling. If the global population reaches 9 billion by 2050, expect a daily fossil fuel ration of a latté cup of gasoline, three Pilates balls of natural gas, or a lump of coal the size of a turnip.
If you suspect life on a pound of coal a day might be solitary, brutish, nasty, and short, you’re right. The countries with the smallest carbon footprints already feature the shortest life expectancies on Earth. Not that real prohibitionists should mind—when it comes to carbon, Sudan is bone dry."
Russell Seitz (russellseitz@gmail.com), a physicist living in Cambridge, Massachusetts, blogs on the climate wars at adamant.typepad.com.
Can you do the math? Really? Is that really what you want as your goal? You'd better be able to get there on your own after people start doing some math, too ... "If some environmentalists have their way, simple math suggests life as we know it will end ... ... more -
2050 greenhouse goals will be too late: EPI head
Pitches to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 are too leisurely and must be brought forward by decades, Lester Brown, president and founder of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington, said Friday at a symposium in Tokyo.
"We are going to have to move much, much faster. I think the game will be over long before 2050," the environment expert said at Sophia University.
Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is expected to release a new initiative on environmental preservation Monday in which Japan will propose reducing long-term its own greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent from current levels by 2050. The initiative will not touch on medium-term goals.
But with the pace of global warming and its link to food prices rising worldwide, the world must "cut carbon emission by 80 percent by 2020," Brown said. The environmentalist, who has headed the nonprofit group EPI since 2001, providing reports and visions for a sustainable economy and environmental preservation, was in Tokyo to speak at the Sophia symposium.
Brown said that while past rises in grain prices were driven by particular events, including droughts and extreme weather, today's food crisis was trend-driven and induced by multiple factors, including population growth and grain being used to make fuel.
In such circumstance each country must work to reconstruct its energy resources, he said, urging Japan to develop its solar- and wind-power technologies and become less dependent on fossil fuels. Pitches to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 are too leisurely and must be brought forward by decades, Lest... more -
Investors demand tougher US climate legislation
An influential coalition of investors has this week called on the US Senate to deliver binding emission reduction targets or risk undermining firms' long-term competitiveness.
The group of more than 50 institutional investors, including Deutsche Asset Management, F&C Asset Management, and the world's largest hedge fund the Man Group, wrote to senate majority leader Harry Reid and senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, calling for a national climate policy to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by between 60 and 90 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The targets are in line with those proposed under the Lieberman-Warner climate bill, which will be debated in the Senate early next month.
The letter also urges Senate leaders to increase pressure on regulatory bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue clear guidance on what climate change risks firms should disclose to investors.
The coalition, which has been organised by ethical investment lobby group Ceres, said there was a strong business case for enacting more stringent carbon targets and legislation.
"Investors hate uncertainty, and that is the problem they face today," said Mindy S Lubber, president of Ceres and director of INCR. "Strong and decisive action from Washington will open the floodgates on large-scale clean technology investments, enabling US investors and businesses to lead instead of lag on climate change solutions."
Oregon state treasurer Randall Edwards, whose office manages $80bn (£40bn) in assets, agreed that far from damaging the economy as its critics claim, the Lieberman-Warner bill would create opportunities for investors. "It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and tackle climate change. Any further delay is inexcusable," he said "The Lieberman-Warner bill would give investors such as myself the ability to see the risks involved so we can begin rebuilding our economy by investing in green technologies."
The calls come in the same week as Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer released an overview of a package of amendments to the Lieberman-Warner bill which are expected to form part of the proposed legislation. The amendments contain a number of measures designed to minimise the financial impact of the planned cap-and-trade scheme, including a mechanism to reduce the price of carbon credits if they hit a certain level and proposals for an $800bn (£400bn) tax relief fund to help consumers cope with rising energy costs.
~~~~~~~~
Yes, 90% by 2050... That's what I'm talking about.This bill is going to be debated on the floor starting tomorrow. Please contact your senators and tell them that even though this is a start, we need to do much better to pass a more comprehensive bill that truly meets the demands and addresses the adverse effects climate change will have on our country and our world if left unchecked. And that means new forms of energy aggressively brought to market to wean us off the destructive energies that pollute our planet and put us all at risk. An influential coalition of investors has this week called on the US Senate to deliver binding emission reduction targets or risk unde... more -
Cap & Betrayed
I admit that, like many Virginians, I follow the Washington Post, but every once in a while, because I lived in DC for a bit, I like to check out The Hill. The Hill is an interesting rag, and often has little newsy bits about developments that may impact policy but weren't considered important enough to make it into the big papers. It's a slow day, so I surfed over to the site to find out what they considered front-page news.
Oh, the betrayal! The Environmental Defense Fund has come out in favor of cap & trade! < Dramatic roll of eyes, limp hand-waving, fake swoon... >
Seriously, their own recommendations in their own words (available at http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5405 ) are much more certain and less dry than The Hill's cover article. "The cost of capping global warming pollution over the next two decades is almost too small to measure."
If cap & trade will cost us virtually nothing, then why isn't EDF recommending we go further?
This is going to be unpalatable to some people, but why aren't we swinging the grassroots momentum for a carbon tipping fee? Think of it this way: Every municipality I know of has littering fees. Most localities have fees for garbage pick-up. If you dump your garbage on the side of the road and get caught, you will be fined. Why? Because rotting garbage is unsightly, smelly, and poses health risks. Polluting in that sense has had fines, fees, costs and criminal charges associated with it for decades.
Carbon pollution is still garbage--it's unsightly, smelly, and poses health risks. Cap & trade does nothing to target transportation; it affects refineries, factories, power plants and other industry carbon sources. A carbon tipping fee would encourage individuals to take more personal responsibility as carbon consumers, as well as hitting the industrial/business sector.
I know it was a countermove in a fight over a particular bill, I feel just a tad betrayed by EDF because, given their findings, I would have liked them to swung the bat for something more. I admit that, like many Virginians, I follow the Washington Post, but every once in a while, because I lived in DC for a bit, I like t... more -
Bush to give speech on climate change, announce goal to cap emissions
President George W. Bush plans to announce on Wednesday an intermediate goal to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, but will not make specific proposals, the White House said on Tuesday... President George W. Bush plans to announce on Wednesday an intermediate goal to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, b... more
-
What Will Come Out of Bali?
This may well be our last chance. The world is watching.
-
Planting Carbon Deep In The Earth-Rather Than The Greenhouse
I am sure that carbon sequestration will play a role in how corporations deal with the climate crisis. And while I do agree that we need some way to scrub carbon industrially I do have questions regarding pumping it into the Earth. How deep could we go without causing earth quakes? Would it hurt groundwater supplies? Just where would it be buried and how would that effect living space? And would it eventually become a bandaid to corporations which would only permit them to continue to spew out millions of tons of GHGs daily knowing that they could just bury it underground? Should not the sole purpose of changing mindsets be to actually cut down on the amount that is actually emitted to begin with, with or without sequestration? Of course, there are also economic questions that go with this and just how corporations would make up for using such techniques in either passing on the cost to consumers, or in cutting other unnecessary operating costs without it affecting the cost of goods. On the whole I think it is one method that is viable but not as a sole way to mitigating carbon. In my view carbon caps and placing a monetary value on carbon would assure that levels would be kept in check to begin with. What do you think? I am sure that carbon sequestration will play a role in how corporations deal with the climate crisis. And while I do agree that we n... more
-
related topics
Carbon Caps
Contributors (25)
Carbon Caps
