What would you say reducing Co2 emissions to 350ppm would involve?
e.g. would technological innovations and changes be enough, or would a wholesale re-organisation of how society works be required?
For example, I understand that ships produce massive amounts of Co2, so would addressing the problem mean restricting the amount of goods shipped around the world?
Alternatively, modern western society relies on an extended "supply chain" for food, which is sold in supermarkets and carried long distances. Would this have to change?
Your views and comments?
.
either
1) we have to invent some way to reduce the concentration of co2 gas in the air..this may invovle inventing chemical process to remove co2 from air, or other geo-engineering schemes or any other dreamy earth-saving idea..
this will definitely involve lots of research, some talented human-brains, path-breaking idea, and monetary support to carry out research.
or
2) you have to reduce the population of the earth to that extent , so that co2 generation is reduced, and the system will automatically readjust itself to 350 ppm level by creating new forests…
this will involve calculating number of people which earth can support to hold on 350 ppm level…and then find the ways how to eliminate the excess population from the earth
or
3) if you donot want to reduce population, you have to force the people to enjoy all the modern amenities they are enjoying now…close down industries, ban on cars,electricity ..etc
this will involve again come to a solution which amenities which industry you have to close down so that you can come to your desired target..
or
there may be many..think about it..
lastly
4) if you donot want to do anything,,
a)you can make business out of it and make lots of money by fooling people…
b) you can use it for your political and social agenda…
conclusion…you can use co2 in any way you want…
AGW is no longer an Earth science. Politicians took it over years ago when they saw a way to advance their own agendas.
"But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)" -Al Gore
"“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,” Chirac added." -Jacque Chirac
Notice how the Climategate e-mails were so swiftly swept under the rug?
How come climate models can be believed peering 100 years into the future, yet noone saw the weather of the past two years?
Consider this "carbon footprint" farce. They create some mythical number that is supposed to save the planet. But realistically, any Co2 emissions above your own breath would contribute to AGW.
Wasn’t the North Pole supposed to be ice free by 2013?
Weren’t the Great lakes supposed to be dry by 2000?
Where are the more frequent and more severe hurricanes?
And now I hear this notion that global warming created the next ice age. They are literally making it up as they go now.
References :
You could make CO2 scrubbers with soda lime like deep sea divers use in their submarines and re-breathers
The main components of soda lime are
Calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2 (about 75%),
Water, H2O (about 20%),
Sodium hydroxide, NaOH (about 3%), and
Potassium hydroxide, KOH (about 1%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_lime
Its a really simple method
References :
The easiest way is to stop China, India, Russia, and Brazil from bringing on line more coal fired power plants and for all Nations of the World to move to more green sources of energy including nuclear power. Considering that the first will not happen, no matter what the United States or Europe does, our total amount of CO2 will continue to go up each year.
References :
either
1) we have to invent some way to reduce the concentration of co2 gas in the air..this may invovle inventing chemical process to remove co2 from air, or other geo-engineering schemes or any other dreamy earth-saving idea..
this will definitely involve lots of research, some talented human-brains, path-breaking idea, and monetary support to carry out research.
or
2) you have to reduce the population of the earth to that extent , so that co2 generation is reduced, and the system will automatically readjust itself to 350 ppm level by creating new forests…
this will involve calculating number of people which earth can support to hold on 350 ppm level…and then find the ways how to eliminate the excess population from the earth
or
3) if you donot want to reduce population, you have to force the people to enjoy all the modern amenities they are enjoying now…close down industries, ban on cars,electricity ..etc
this will involve again come to a solution which amenities which industry you have to close down so that you can come to your desired target..
or
there may be many..think about it..
lastly
4) if you donot want to do anything,,
a)you can make business out of it and make lots of money by fooling people…
b) you can use it for your political and social agenda…
conclusion…you can use co2 in any way you want…
References :
my wanton thinking…
Can’t be done without a move to a world government. Not sure whether we could limit it to 500 ppm. It would depend on the amount of CO2 put off by nature.
The scrubbers won’t work, they cost too much and don’t take out enough CO2.
The better question is how quickly the US can move towards nearly 0 CO2 emissions. Now given that it takes about 20 years to build a nuclear power plant, I would suggest the following. We could move toward entirely nuclear power within the next 40 years. May bring this down to 30 years if you allow for other technologies. During this time, we could also have our cars running entirely on electricity. We are nearly there now. I think we would need to get the distance that the electric cars can go to be up to 500 miles. When we hit this point, there will be no need for gasoline.
Now I have a theory that if we were to create the electric cars so that instead of having one battery, they have many smaller batteries. At the gas stations you could have replacement batteries, that work like the propane refills are done. Then you could have the electric cars with the distance allowed by the gas stations.
References :
No, Romeo. No way of making your CO2 scrubber without releasing at least as much CO2 in making it.
Apart from that, I nominate the usual suspects: real biofuels from cellulose or sugarcane and other plant waste, decent public transport, high speed rail, stopping the perverse tax incentives in the US to use coal and oil, nuclear including reprocessing fuel, conservation through insulation, eat less meat.
Edit: and I’m glad to see littlero… in her great list mention no till agriculture, which holds carbon in the soil. Best combined with GM roundup-resistant crops, since one purpose of tilling is to kill weeds. For need for GM, see Borlaug’s retrospective to his Nobel address;
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/borlaug/borlaug-lecture.pdf
And of course population reduction; the best way to do this is to give power and opportunity to women. Sorry if this is awfully PC, but that’s how it iw.
References :
shipping is actually quite efficient compared to any other transport mechanism. also, they are good contenders to use the last of the heavy sour oil, as sulphur emissions at sea are far less damaging than over land, and could be said to be ‘cloud seeding’ in a way that has been proposed as a geoengineering method.
extended "supply chains" for food, and everything else, are a stupid idea on many levels. we have seen how a close coupled global financial and commercial system has the capacity to crash; a disturbance in one part sending waves of disruption across the whole network. we have to re-install buffers and redundancy, and local commercial networks provide both.
i think with a combination of tech, localisation, and reorganising to a fairer wealth distribution worldwide we have a chance.
low tech;
no-plow agriculture, reforestation and sustainable forest exploitation, biochar.
adding buffers (chalk, old concrete) to locally valuable marine ecosystems to counter acidification.
CO2 absorbing paint and concrete.
high tech;
worldwide conversion to low carbon energy generation.
CO2 scrubbers and carbon capture and sequestration.
References :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cement-from-carbon-dioxide
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126901.200-can-technology-clear-the-air.html?page=3
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=metal-organic-frameworks-carbon-capture
It’s not possible for humans to effect the atmosphere in such a way.
There are at least 880,000 tons of atmosphere per person on earth.
I did the math…
References :
A fair question. Right now we put about 80 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually through human activities. That’s 80 Million tons. Mother Nature produces about 500 gigatons annually, which she can take care of through recycling (animals produce CO2; plants consume it). There are CO2 sinks like the ocean which absorb some of the extra CO2 we produce. The rest builds up in the atmosphere.
In order to reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration, we would have to sharply curtail our contribution. Every gallon of oil or pound of coal we burn contributes to the problem. I’d say we would need to eliminate all power plants which burn something to produce energy, and move to electric cars and trucks. Fossil fuels would still be used for the airline industry since no alternative exists. We should reduce our vast herds of cows as well, because they produce a lot of methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than CO2.
That’s how a reduced CO2 world would look- nuclear power plants, solar, tidal, geothermal, and wind generation as well. No internal combustion engines on the road. A much more robust electricity grid to handle the extra demand. Heat pumps on every house. Unfortunately, the technology isn’t there yet to get all of our electricty from alternative sources. Right now it only accounts for about 5%.
References :
Largely doing stuff we should be doing anyway, to reduce dependence on imported energy, and to weaken dictators in energy exporting countries.
The heart of the matter is energy, producing it in ways which don’t generate much CO2, and using it more efficiently.
In the beginning that will require construction of nuclear power plants, and building (and remodeling) our buildings and factories to use less energy. Conservation is a very underestimate energy "source", it’s big and we can deploy it relatively rapidly. We’ll be starting to replace fossil fuel powered vehicles with electrics, run off those nuclear power plants. We don’t have to worry about timing; right now we have massive overcapacity at night, when we’d mostly be charging the vehicles. We’ll also be building alternative energy units, solar and wind to start with; adding in other technologies as developed. Eventually all that will take over from nuclear, but they can’t do that right now.
For some applications, like airplanes, liquid fuels are hard to beat for weight/power ratio. The answer there may be biofuels. Replacing CO2 taken out of the atmosphere very recently by plants is no big deal.
There’s a number of other activities we’ll be doing; conserving tropical forests, and re vegetating, particularly toward the equator, where stuff grows fast. Managing our agriculture better, including capturing and using methane produced in meat production, something that’s already being done on a limited scale.
This is a big job, we’ll need all the tools our ingenuity can provide. Ther’s no shortage of smart people working on the details of plans to do all of the above, and a whole lot more.
It will take at least 50 years to complete the job, but we can make huge chunks of progress before then, particularly in the areas of energy conservation, where we have a LOT of room for improvement.
All this is very doable, particularly if the US gets serious about developing the technology. This kind of engineering engineering is something the US was extremely good at, until it got lazy.
The price tag is uncertain, but it will be vastly less than coping with the effects of unreduced global warming would be, in financial, human, and national security terms. We’ll still have to cope with some effects, we’re not going to stop this thing in its’ tracks.
Done properly, starting now, disruptions to society would be minor. Wait 10-30 years, until this is starting to hit really hard, and we will desperately be doing stuff you won’t like. Nor will anyone.
The bottom line is that fixing this is not a desperate move for survival. It’s simply moving into the 21st century as far as energy production and efficient use are concerned. Right now the ways the world makes and uses energy threaten our economy, our security, and the environment.
References :
CO2 is what LIFE uses to store SUNSHINE. (aka energy)
PLANTS use Solar Energy to rip apart CO2 (& H20) to make HYDROCARBONS like
Wood, Wax, Methane, Propane, Alcohol, Gasoline, Oil, etc…
Think of these things as MONEY made by SUNSHINE.
When you ’spend’ - CO2 goes INTO the air.
When you ’save’ - CO2 comes OUT of the air.
Of course Animals never save, only plants do.
Western (& Eastern) Societies have discovered HUGE piles of MONEY created by PREHISTORIC Sunshine, and they are spending these Fossil Fuels because that’s what you do with money.
To gain control of this Money, the Socialists are propagandizing the public with the "CO2 is evil & deadly" theory know as AGW. I.e. spending will kill YOU so let US tell you how much you can do.
AGW is (mostly) bullshit because the CO2 going INTO the air is the same CO2 that came OUT of the air all those years ago.
HOWEVER the fact remains that we are SPENDING faster than SAVING.
Our sexy lifestyles are based on cheap energy & the Prehistoric Money pile is finite.
TO REDUCE CO2 LEVELS WOULD INVOLVE NOTHING SHORT OF A COMPLETE BAN ON THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS.
In essence telling everyone to ignore the big pile of Money.
Now here’s the big JOKE: No one, not even the Socialists is going to do this.
The Politicians & Governments feigning concern over CO2 levels just want to TAX fossil fuels NOT stop using them. Obama flew his giant fossil fuel jet with escort across the Atlantic so he could lecture US on wasting fossil fuels. Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint is about 10x that of an average American, and we have the largest footprints in the world.
The CO2 level will rise SLOWER if we conserve, but the actuality is that USE will NEVER go DOWN so long as SUPPLY endures. The game will always be WHO gets to SPEND the Hydrocarbon Sunshine Money, NEVER IF it gets spent.
So here is what is going to happen.
-Human Civilization is going to spend the rest of the Prehistoric Sunshine Money.
-The Atmosphere / Ecosystem will survive the addend CO2 because we are just putting back what was there to begin with.
-Hydrocarbon cost will go up as supply diminishes.
-And EVENTUALLY we will be forced to convert to ‘Pay as you Go’ Hydrocarbons.
The conversion will be relatively smooth if managed by free market Capitalists.
Or brutal and deadly if the Socialists do it.
Barring some Nuclear breakthroughs, my guess for the 22 century’s predominant fuel is sea floor methane. Also, a great deal of human trash can be thermally depolymerized into oil.
References :
The limited supply of fossil fuels will eventually force us to change in some ways, like growing and processing food closer to home instead of sending it to China to be processed, then sent back here. Shipping is actually very efficient, thus it is used so much now, but not shipping stuff we don’t need would be even more efficient. The technological innovations now available (insulation, internet, super strong/lightweight metals, LED bulbs,…) would go far towards cutting emissions, yet they aren’t acceptable to those who insist on doing things the way they have always been done. As each new generation comes, they accept what "is" and are open to some new ideas, so eventually we will get there without any drastic changes, as long as nothing drastic happens before then.
References :
Ships produce CO2, true enough, but there aren’t enough ships to make a difference. The Supply Chain you speak of must not be disrupted or millions will die.
It is a good idea to reduce use of fossil fuels, but not because of CO2.
CO2 is a good gas that feeds plants - Don’t let anyone tell you different!
References :