CO2 Emission Reduction

[Franconicus]

Just a mind game:

Assumption: The world achieves the CO2 reduction targets

Conclusion:

The consumption of oil and gas will decrease drastically
The price for oil will drop (price before tax at least)
Some oil companies will come into trouble as well as oil tank companies, pipeline operating companies etc.
OPEC will have a much lower income
They will compensate this by the introduction of taxes; political stability in these countries will decrease
terrorism will increase
They will antagonize this by pulling their money back from investments in Europe and the US
and so on ...
:no:
I would like to hear youir opinion!

[CountArach]

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. People will seek new forms of power, including those countries which currently rely on the Global Oil Market. What if they are the ones who discover some of this new technology? Crisis averted.

[Sigurd]

The goal should be to shut down all coal based powerplants and start building gas based powerplants with CO2 filters. Or plants with CO2 capturing devices that stores CO2 that we can pump back town into the oil/gas wells to bring up even more oil/gas.
A win win situation...

BTW can you tell I am working for a company named StatoilHydro? :beam:

[Husar]

Imagine this, one day oil will run out anyway and oil prices will rise and despite that we will be left with no oil anyway and then we didn't prepare for it and then?:dizzy2:

[doc_bean]

OPEC will have a much lower income


I'll follow up to this point


They will compensate this by the introduction of taxes;


Tax what ? Several OPEC countreis have a backup plan, they invest in chemical plants (Saudis) or Tourism (Gulf region), others just use that money to hand it out to the poor (Venezuela, Cuba), I'd hardly think taxing the general population more would be a solution, I doubt any of those countries think so.



political stability in these countries will decrease

Why ? Due to poverty ? Poverty often translates into political instability, but not always


terrorism will increase

Are you lumping together all forms of terrorism ? I'd say revolutionary movements would increase (following your own logic), they will be focused mostly on their own state, not on the great Satan.



They will antagonize this by pulling their money back from investments in Europe and the US

Wait, I thought the problem was they didn't have enough money ?

Sorry, too many 'leaps of faith' here for my taste. In any case our decrease of CO2 output will be gradual, so there's little chance for such 'overnight' disasters to occur.

[master of the puppets]

i actually agree with Franconicus on this. The whole of the middle east makes as much annually as Spain, even with oil sales, they do not have much land from which to grow sustainable crops and tourism can only employ so many people. If we meet those nonsense CO2 reduction requirments it will only drop CO2 by around .04 worldwide, that is miniscule but it will essentially strangle the middle east into action desperation causes risk, so terrorism, instability, uprisings and an even increased amount of fanatacism is expected tro rise.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The goal should be to shut down all coal based powerplants and start building gas based powerplants with CO2 filters. Or plants with CO2 capturing devices that stores CO2 that we can pump back town into the oil/gas wells to bring up even more oil/gas.
A win win situation...

BTW can you tell I am working for a company named StatoilHydro? :beam:
Hehe ~:) The capture devices/filters sound like a good idea, but is there no possibility to combine the capture+filter with a system to chemically bind the CO2 in a way that becomes a solid chemical compound, that would be easier to store (less volume, and less likely to leak)? If this were to be implemented, it would allow using the entire oil and coal reserves, which together are likely to be able to provide energy for over 100 years, thus solving both the oil shortage problem (from energy perspective) and too big amount of oil problem (from a global warming perspective). However, without checking population growth over the earth these 100 years may become less, and we'll be back at status quo when that point comes. In the ultra-long term, other alternatives are necessary, but in the medium-long term, I think capture - especially if it could be done into solid chemical compunds - is our best hope. :2thumbsup:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Just a mind game:

Assumption: The world achieves the CO2 reduction targets

Conclusion:

The consumption of oil and gas will decrease drastically
The price for oil will drop (price before tax at least)
Some oil companies will come into trouble as well as oil tank companies, pipeline operating companies etc.
OPEC will have a much lower income
They will compensate this by the introduction of taxes; political stability in these countries will decrease
terrorism will increase
They will antagonize this by pulling their money back from investments in Europe and the US
and so on ...
:no:
I would like to hear youir opinion!
Lower emission doesn't necessarily mean lowered oil prices or less oil consumption. CO2 capture is the most likely medium long term solution to emission problems, and capture allows continued usage of oil for energy production, until the oil runs out, that is. But oil prices will remain high as oil gets more rare, due to the fact that oil can't effectively be replaced for other usages than energy production, such as in certain machinery, for asphalt, for production of plastic, and several other applications: the list is incredibly long. Finally, terrorism is seldom caused by declining internal economy, unless that decline is caused by offensive, hostile, deliberate actions from an outside power that has as its aim to create this weakening. Internal decline in economy is unlikely to cause terrorism, but it may cause humanitarian disasters or - in case the weakening was reinforced by outside nations - cause hostility towards them, after a process of rebuilding. If the rebuilding is inhibited by continuous sabotage from outside nations, these nations are however likely to become victims of terrorism.

In short: lower CO2 emissions are completely unrelated to amount of terrorism and stability levels in the Middle East.

[Sigurd]

About 84% of the Petroleum that is pumped up from the bedrock is used for energy. Only about 16% is used for the other stuff like plastic etc.

But since we are talking about CO2 emission here I think the focus should be on coal and coal used to produce energy.
The total world oil reserves (discovered) will last around 45 years at the rate we use it today. But the coal reserves are vast and therefore cheap. It will take hundreds of years to spend it all.
Too many coal powered plants are being built today. Take China as an example, they are basically churning out a coal based power plant a week. Each producing more CO2 a week than the entire people of Norway (personal emissions) is able to produce during a year.
There is lot of talk about buying climate quotas abroad instead of reducing the emission at home. The reason is as follows: The technology to reduce emission from our oil industry (the prime polluter in our country) costs more pr ton reduced CO2 than say buying filter technology for the coal power plants in China that will reduce up to 10 times more pr currency unit. Also those bound to the Kyoto agreement has agreed to reduce and there are ample opportunities to help the countries not bound to this agreement (dev. countries). We are talking global here… what use is it for us to reduce our emissions (which is only a tiny spec compared to the total world emission) when countries like China and India churns out their coal based power plants unhindered?

We talk of what we can do personally. If every person in Norway stopped driving cars and stopped warming their houses with wood fire or oil a 12% reduction of the total Norwegian CO2 emission would be reduced. We have committed to a 30% reduction. Clearly other areas need to be looked into.

Some of the politicians don’t want to build gas powered plants because the result would be that our emission will increase. (Currently our energy comes from water powered plants).
The problem is; if we can’t build gas powered plants (which emits only a fraction of what a coal powered plant does) we will not be able to develop the CO2 capturing technology needed. Norway has tons of money and today these CO2 capturing devices costs too much. New and cheaper technology is needed. By doing this we can share this technology with other nations not having the resources to develop this technology themselves.
Today most of the oilrigs in the North Sea have their own power plant, mostly gas driven.
One of these rigs has expensive CO2 capturing technology which captures 100% of the CO2 and pumps it back into the sea bed.

I can easily see the possibility of having sea based gas power plants with 100% CO2 capture and sending the power by cable ashore.

The crux lies in getting the BIG CO2 emitters to reduce… that means the dev. Countries. They can’t afford it themselves, but rich nations can help by buying this technology for them… not for free but to buy percentage that they have committed to help reduce.

[Franconicus]

:7fortuneteller: How promising and reliable is this CO2 capturing technology. To me it always sounds like a lousy trick!

[Odin]

:7fortuneteller: How promising and reliable is this CO2 capturing technology. To me it always sounds like a lousy trick!

Tree's are promising and reliable, talk about a bang for the buck. Forests are the largest CO2 storage houses we have, deforestation is a huge problem in the CO2 equation.

Sadly, the media, government and corporations have a lot of people believing that oil consumption is the main culprit in CO2 emission and the negative impact on the environment. While its signifigant, its not nearly as alarming as the amazon delta loosing the equivelent of switzerlands land mass in tree's to deforestation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Increased use of nuclear fission power; more systematic exploitation of hydro and geothermal sources were applicable; use of tidal systems where tides vary enough to be useful for this purpose.

Dedicated & heavily funded research into practicable fusion power. Since this is the primary energy source of our universe -- all of our fossil fuels being mere "battery storage" of this energy, fusion would be the brass ring.

Preserve oil for all of the lovely distillates/byproducts we'll need.


I am not completely convinced about the risks of CO2 emission, but am willing to stipulate that a shift away from fossil fuel consumption would be beneficial on a number of other levels and that such a reduction certainly would be unlikely to harm the environment.

The <CO2 emission = > M.E. instability/terrorism link is tenuous.

Yes, reducing dependence on M.E. oil would result in a pullback in monies circulating in the M.E. However, ruling castes in the M.E. have fairly successfully diverted most of the "revolutionary" energy in their countries into terrorist efforts. Israel has been a god-send for them by allowing all of their "young turks" to focus most of their revolutionary fervor on an "external" target and not within their own borders. Terrorism has become a quasi-institution in the Middle East (I just thought of this, may need to separate the point into its own thread for discussion -- Dibs!) and would not, therefore, readily succumb to "environmental" change as it has become more integral than that. Terrorism is the counter to instability, not its ally.

[71-hour Ahmed]

BP were planning a CO2 capture scheme, but its been shelved now... :furious3:
lack of government action to get it going, and laziness on the companies part. Still, no reason it shouldn't work, although I am concerned about the energy cost of compressing CO2 to an adequate pressure to enter the wells (I haven't done the energy maths but compression is expensive in energy terms, and might be up to 150 - 200 atm required), and the resulting high CO2 return to the surface would also be a nuisance if you injected into a producing reservoir. Exported oil CO2 would potentially also be badly affected as the pipeline companies only allow you to send so much to shore, too much CO2 in the oil would need offshore treatment (more energy used).

And Sigurd, no building giant fuel gas power plants in the north sea, we need that gas for our heating here in the UK!

[Sigurd]

Just to give you guys a sample here of emissions of climate gases (yes it is the new term for it). I just had a look at the live planet thing or what it was called on TV.
The focus was again on what the individual person can do to reduce their contribution to the climate gasses.
I have here an overview of the six worst mainland emitters of CO2 in Norway.

https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/CO2em_Norway2005.jpg

They are responsible for annually 9,3 million tons of CO2 and as a comparison
4,5 million people are responsible for 5,6 million tons of CO2 annually (number include heating, car-transport and food).
In total the mainland industry is responsible of 14,7 million ton CO2 and the offshore industry is responsible for 13,4 million ton CO2.
If you add them together the total Norwegian industrial emission is 28,1 million tonnes CO2. In addition to this you have the transport sector of witch I have no real numbers. Some sources suggest 17 million tonnes.

It seems like the environmentalists focus on what we as people can do to reduce these climate gasses.
It is true that they try to influence us in such a way that we consume less energy or products that need energy.
This is all good but it will take time. As I mentioned earlier new coal plants pops up in the Asian industrialisation, because the marked demands it. Coal is by far the cheapest resource for energy. They build them without catalysts or other filters in China.

Here back home we are trying to make the industry reduce their emission and I have mentioned some of the initiatives taken to realise this.

The petro-industry is developing better catalysts.
The cement plants are moving over from coal and oil to biofuel.

Hydro (the company I am working for - soon to be StatoilHydro) have committed to a 25% reduction within next year.
Statoil, the other giant petro company, are doing tests (the CO2 gases pumped back into the sea bed) and are building a gas power plant at Mongstad (there is a petroleum refinery there today). They are developing advanced CO2 filters for this power plant that will be finished in 2010 and plan on full CO2 cleansing by 2014. (The environmentalists are not too happy about that deal).

I am not seeing what we, the individual persons on this planet, can do to make a difference. As long as the developing countries are allowed to churn out their coal based energy that emits more climate gases a week than we as a nation of individuals are able to in a year, we are still going down the path to so-called destruction.

I am tired of the nagging from all sorts of enlightened people that we must buy cars that emits less and that we must build homes that uses less energy and … and … blalblallblalblabla.
It makes no difference globally.
I can buy a car that I have no enjoyment from, knowing that next week China will fire up a new coal plant that emits 1 000 000 times more CO2 a day than the car can do in its lifetime. Oh, yeah I am making a difference. Get off my back, I want to enjoy the time I have left on this earth.
Now where did I put the brochure of that Viper Venom 1000. :book:

[Odin]

I am not seeing what we, the individual persons on this planet, can do to make a difference. As long as the developing countries are allowed to churn out their coal based energy that emits more climate gases a week than we as a nation of individuals are able to in a year, we are still going down the path to so-called destruction.



Sadly the issue of CO2 emission has been made very complex. While its a fair assesement to include energy consumption, its not a realistic vein in which to make a lot of headway.

Facing reality isnt always easy, and the energy based needs of humans are not going to evolve to the point of not needing fossils fast enough. The systems in which to employ fossils to increase production of goods is in place, and profitable.

That said there is one thing we can do, and that is work towards decreasing deforestation. Just an example, in 1600 about a billion acres of the US was forest, in 1962 it was 762 million acre's. source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oldgrowth3.jpg).

Basically CO, methane when not absorbed by plants creates a barrier in the atmosphere that traps the suns heat (greenhouse effect) that warms the earth. So there are a few approaches to take here, lower emission by humans (unlikely due the the economics of the issue) or increase the plants that absorb the excess carbon.

the later is possible, because anyone can plant a tree. There was a decent analysis done here (http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm#11) when you scroll down a little you see that "Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually -- or 2.6 tons per acre each year."

So per this study the theory bares out, if the numbers are accurate. So you specifically cant plant a tree or two and that will most likely cover your CO2 emission (you seem like a pretty clean guy Sigurd). As for the bigger picture, I dont think we need a lot of detailed research to come up with a CO emission conversion to tons per year.

With that data countries can calculate the needed forestation programs to cover thier emissions. Presto, all those shinny factories producing goods for us happy consumers chug along, and I dont have to sell my 76 vette either...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

To the original topic: What are the targets for emission reduction? One of those evil conservative American magazines published an article that said:


In order to decrease carbon emissions by 33 percent, we would have to remove every existing car and truck from the road (yes, that includes your hybrid), ground every airplane, and shut down every gas station in the United States. In order to bump up from there to a 73-percent decrease in emissions, we would have to shut down most of our electrical grid, with the exception of areas supplied only by nuclear plants, windmills, and dams.

(This is for America, mind you).

EDIT: Odin, there's an interesting powerpoint as the second link to this google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=forest+per+acre+in+US&btnG=Google+Search
We've lost forest since 1600 but we're doing a little better since 1962, it seems.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What a load of crap

Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.jsp)


The results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years."

The sun not CO2 drives our climate.

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html)

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/temp_vs_spots.gif

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html)


More and more of this global warming crap is proven wrong every day just as many of you and everyone else are all wrapped up in and believing this junk science.

I urge those of you who care to watch this.Yes you maybe be able to pick some of it apart but it puts all this in its true light far more than Gores movie does. Heres the other side of the story

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/9/4841)

[Caius]

terrorism will increase
Hah, nike joke.
Why do you think that? I dont think so.


The sun not CO2 drives our climate
:no: Tell me, who did you teach geography?Do I have to explain which is the circle of the O3. Cmon Gawain, explain little Garcilaso how the sun drive the climate?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Cmon Gawain, explain little Garcilaso how the sun drive the climate?

Read the articles. I know it sounds stupid to say the strongest source of energy in our solar system and the source of our heat is driving global warming as opposed to the huge amount of man made CO2. Just call me crazy.

Better yet watch the movie if you dare.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The sun not CO2 drives our climate.
Nice cutting job you (or your source) did with the graph! First of all, focus on the rightmost part of it. The sun curve goes sharpy down, yet the temperature steeper and steeper upwards. How does your model explain that? If you find yourself another graph, that hasn't cut off the time 2000 - 2006, you see this trend continuing even more visibly: the temperature increase is getting steeper and steeper, while the sun curve going down lower and lower.

The "solar cycles" theory was a nice try from the deniers back in the 90ies, but anyone looking at the entire graph up till now can clearly see the absurdity of that theory by a quick glance.

I'm also a bit curious how deniers can say that temperature measurements from 1850 are considered unreliable, but believe that solar activity measurements from that time (a LOT more complex measurement!) are correct. The choice to only include 1 temperature graph and 1 solar activity graph is also suspicious, giving the graph constructor the possibility of choosing the temperature and solar activity measurement source that fits his own theory best.

Here's another solar cycle curve, which completely disagrees with yours:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nice cutting job you (or your source) did with the graph! First of all, focus on the rightmost part of it. The sun curve goes sharpy down, yet the temperature steeper and steeper upwards. How does your model explain that? If you find yourself another graph, that hasn't cut off the time 2000 - 2006, you see this trend continuing even more visibly: the temperature increase is getting steeper and steeper, while the sun curve going down lower and lower.

It follows it much better than the one Gore uses to prove Co2 causes global warming when in fact that graph shows that CO2 lags temp increases

Heres a 2 minute clip from the movie showing just that.

Climate swindle, Al Gore and Co2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRKApUV-aU)

Just look at Gores graph for yourself. Its right there. I noticed it before looking for proof. In fact its not even disputed anymore.

Carbon dioxide & 800-year lag behind temperature

[Caius]

Just call me crazy.
Crazy.~D


Better yet watch the movie if you dare.
Yes, If I only know spoken english...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, If I only know spoken english...


Do you speak spanish? The two minute clip I jist posted has spanish subtitles I believe.

As does this

climate swindle Oceans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS0NuEDAFXk)

Heres the part you asked about I think for those who speak english and dont want to watch the whole movie

Data from The Great Global Warming Swindle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4boaEbtjByU)

[Caius]

Yes, I do speak spanish.

[Tribesman]

Nice cutting job you (or your source) did with the graph!
Would that be the graph that was not only cut but also stretched and then straightened because it didn't show what the producer wanted it to show .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Way to go Gawain are these more "FACTS" you are presenting :dizzy2:

[Odin]

Just look at Gores graph for yourself. Its right there. I noticed it before looking for proof. In fact its not even disputed anymore.



Quoting and using Gore as reference, even in jest is blasphemy, he should be shipped abroad as fast as possible.

That said, no matter the cause for increased CO2, there is one sure fire way to deal with it, and thats forestation. Tree's hold carbon, and the less there are the more carbon gets into the atmosphere.

So I dont really care if its the sun, a billion indians who get cars, thousands of chinese factories... Dosent matter to me if we burn oil fossil fuels, heck my CO2 footprint is probably higher then most.

I agree with you Gawain, there is a big reem job happening with global warming fear mongering. Its correctable, and sustainable and everyone can have coal bon fires in thier back yards.

We just need to stop cutting so many trees and plant a few more. Simple isnt it? Of course that dosent sell movies, or commercial time, or papers with op ed pieces does it?

You know Gawain your influence has made me fairly sceptical, more then I was in my younger years, but your bordering on becoming a heathen in my eyes for the Gore references.

I know your better then that... :thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

As does this

climate swindle Oceans

Nice clip from the film Gawain , that fella talking , the scientist bloke on about oceans and stuff . he wouldn't happen to be the one who says he is completely misrepresented in the film is he , a film he says is as accurate as WW2 propoganda movies ? or is that a different fella ?
Keep 'em coming :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Nice clip from the film Gawain , that fella talking , the scientist bloke on about oceans and stuff . he wouldn't happen to be the one who says he is completely misrepresented in the film is he , a film he says is as accurate as WW2 propoganda movies ? or is that a different fella ?
Keep 'em coming

I said there were parts you could pick apart. Sounds like all those guys who say the IPCC did the same to them.


Would that be the graph that was not only cut but also stretched and then straightened because it didn't show what the producer wanted it to show .
Way to go Gawain are these more "FACTS" you are presenting

Look at the graph Gore uses. It shows the samething clearly. Thats where I noticed it. And where did I claim these are facts.? Just your usual nonsense.


Quoting and using Gore as reference, even in jest is blasphemy, he should be shipped abroad as fast as possible.

Well I have to say that seeing him on that concert show really pissed me off. All these people going gah gah over him going "oh I never knew that". What a load of crap. What propaganda. He hasnt changed from that 70s piece of crap he always was. Finding a cause to advance himself.

[Husar]

Funny stuff.

To me, arguments on both sides make sense and I actually like what Odin says, more trees certainly won't hurt us and they also "produce" oxygen which we need anyway and that's just a few of their uses, they have a lot more.:2thumbsup:
The graph about the 800 year lag Gawain showed does make sense but so does the greenhouse explanation for global warming. Another argument for global warming would be that global dimming works against it currently, because it was shown that exhaust fumes, clouds and other particles in the air reflect sunlight back to space, so reducing our emissions will also allow more sunlight into our atmosphere. This means the once we have our CO2 reduction completed and we emit nothing anymore but the atmosphere is still full of CO2, we might be grilled, or not. Depends on who is right and how strong the individual effects are and maybe that's where the truth lies.

Like many said, it's a complicated issue and a combination of differently strong factors can lead to different results. That means it's entirely possible that the earth is warming up and that we help it do so. And I wouldn't even wonder if there was a factor we don't even know about, like the reduction of cool honeybees who absorbed a lot of sunlight before and are dieing now because our waves disturb their GPS(talk about reliance on technology...).:shrug:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but so does the greenhouse explanation for global warming.

If it were so then the temp increase should be the highest in the troposphere but its not . Its highest at ground level. Just about nothing fits. I could claim its the invention of the personal pc as the temp has gone up since its invention. Maybe its because there are more Muslims in the world and the extra CO2 they spout while praying out loud 5 times a day.

The only part that fits is CO2 is a greenhouse gas and traps heat. After that its all conjecture.

[Husar]

If it were so then the temp increase should be the highest in the troposphere but its not . Its highest at ground level. Just about nothing fits.
The particles there just reflect the sunlight that was reflected from the ground while the ground reflecte the same light rays first(you could say when they still had more energy) and also absorbed some of them, so naturally the ground is hotter. I don't think reflection causes as much heat as absorption does. With more reflection up in the sky, the ground will also absorb more because rays reflected at first will be thrown back down.

[Sigurd]

Actually we don't have to discuss whether reduction of CO2 emission will in fact reduce global warming. This is not the issue.
The issue is that nations are bound to an agreement to reduce their emission with such and such percent.
Norway has agreed to reduce their CO2 emission by 30% by 2020.
Whether I agree or not makes for spit in the ocean.
They will execute their plan even if I should blow myself up at a shopping centre as a protest against following an absurd concept. I guess we have to live with it.
And frankly I am a little tired of being the good guy; the pioneer in environmental issues.
The world window to how things should be done on this planet. We are a speck in the ocean, and no matter what we do it will have no/little effect globally.

It is just the new idea that it is frowned upon that you drive a gasoline hungry car, that people point to their head if you sit in your car on a parking lot with the engine running. Don’t they get that it is hot in a car and you need the engine running to operate you AC?
Oh no, this guy is travelling by plane more than two times a year…

As I mentioned, if we as individual people stop using cars, do not heat our house, stop breathing and do not cook food – the reduced CO2 emission would amount to 12 %...
Stop bugging we with this crap… go to the industries; they can by simple means reduce their CO2 by large amounts. Did I mention that my company plan on a 25 % reduction by next year?
And if you could buy such quotas in the developing countries by putting a catalyst on two three coal plants, say what amounts to 20% of your emission, that would be OK, wouldn’t it?
See? We filled our quota without bugging our citizens with higher fuel prices or increased taxes on cars, travel, electricity or food.

Oh and to please Odin… We even planted trees… you gotta deduct their CO2 absorption from our quota mr. Kyoto.
Oh, we managed a 40% reduction.. Can we have 10% back in cash please? :wall:

[Rodion Romanovich]

In fact its not even disputed anymore.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Yeah, global warming is exactly like gravity, eh? Just a theory ~:)

By the way, your first "reliable" source is a youtube clip, and the second one is a broken link :laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

eah, global warming is exactly like gravity, eh? Just a theory

Whats not disputed is that co2 emissions lag temp increases by 800 years.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Whats not disputed is that co2 emissions lag temp increases by 800 years.

Do you refer to the inaccurate ice core samples? Maybe then you're aware that carbon dioxide is lighter than water and will rise through the ice cores, moving the carbon towards a younger age than the actual age. As a result, some ice cores show carbon at the same time or sometimes even after the temperature increase. Additionally, carbon dioxide is expected to increase after the end of an ice age, after ice-bound CO2 is released during melting. Only sources I can find that claim this disproves global warming, are various right wing extremist blogs

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Odd, because the only sources I can find that CO2 doesn't have to do with global warming, are various right wing extremist blog

ell I posted one here but you seem to have missed it.

This is from Real Climate. You wont find a more staunch supporter of global warming


At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

[Rodion Romanovich]

That source doesn't say global warming isn't caused by CO2. It explains to right wing extremist bloggers, pollution supporters, and ostrich-like deniers that CO2 increase are expected after the end of an ice age. That has no relation whatsoever with global warming. That it would have, is an after-construction by right wing extremists.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

t explains top right wing extremist bloggers, pollution supporters, and ostrich-like deniers t

Proving another of mine and the great global warming swindles points. Call those who disagree dirty names.


that CO2 increase are expected after the end of an ice age.

Why? Isnt then end of an ice age caused by global warming?


That has no relation whatsoever with global warming.

Well at least you go that right :laugh4:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Proving another of mine and the great global warming swindles points. Call those who disagree dirty names.

Dirtyness in those names come from your own interpretation. At least that proves you feel guilty and are doubting your standpoint. That's a good first step.



Why? Isnt then end of an ice age caused by global warming?

Considering that cavemen didn't have CO2 emission factories and an ability to drill for oil and natural gas and create coal mines, whatever source convinced you of that must be quite unreliable. It's important to scrutinize the sources well, thinking of what their motives may be, and whether they can support their standpoints by valid scientific arguments. Right wing extremist blogs are not to consider reliable sources. :book:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Dirtyness in those names come from your own interpretation. At least that proves you feel guilty and are doubting your standpoint. That's a good first step.

:laugh4:


right wing extremist bloggers

Now thats a nice thing to call someone. I guess extremist bloggers are a good thing to you.


pollution supporters

Those as well. Of which I am not one.


and ostrich-like deniers

How could I possibly have taken any of those as insulting? :wall:


Considering that cavemen didn't have CO2 emission factories and an ability to drill for oil and natural gas and create coal mines, whatever source convinced you of that must be quite unreliable

So your saying that global warming has occured through out history even before we were involved. Thanks for backing me up. :whip: The temperature always goes up and then the C02 level.


It's important to scrutinize the sources well, thinking of what their motives may be, and whether they can support their standpoints by valid scientific arguments. Right wing extremist blogs are not to consider reliable sources.

But left wing ones are.:wall:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Now thats a nice thing to call someone. I guess extremist bloggers are a good thing to you.

It's a neutral word. Extremist right wing means they're more to the right wing than a qualified majority (like 99%) of other people. Considering that 99% consider that person a bit too far out on his wing, and that only 1% consider him too moderate, he's likely to have not so sane views in some matters, but this is something that isn't explicitly stated by the word extremist.



Those as well. Of which I am not one.

First, if you read the post, it doesn't call you one. However, I have reason to revise that, and ask: What are you, when you oppose getting rid of most of the pollution even though it won't come with any disadvantages at all?



So your saying that global warming has occured through out history even before we were involved. Thanks for backing me up. :whip: The temperature always goes up and then the C02 level.

I think you need to reread my post.



But left wing ones are.:wall:
Again, you need to reread my post. The extremist blogs are not realiable sources. It's quite odd how you think you can demonstrate extremist blogs and industry-sponsored research in response to serious research data by climate researchers with unbiased state funding (well, that may exclude your own country, for all I know).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's a neutral word.

:laugh4: And the others?


What are you, when you oppose getting rid of most of the pollution even though it won't come with any disadvantages at all?


I dont oppose getting rid of any pollution. My position is that C)2 is not only not a pollutant but needed for live. Generally the more co2 the more life there is.


I think you need to reread my post.

Maybe you need to rephrase it.


Again, you need to reread my post. The extremist blogs are not realiable sources. I

So you and others should stop using them then.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I dont oppose getting rid of any pollution. My position is that C)2 is not only not a pollutant but needed for live. Generally the more co2 the more life there is.

So, you don't oppose of getting rid of any pollution, but wish to have as much CO2 as possible? :dizzy2:



Maybe you need to rephrase it.

I insist that you reread it. Your comment on it demonstrates that you didn't read it, since you claim I said something I didn't.



So you and others should stop using them then.
Huh? When did I ever quote a right wing extremist blogger? If I recall correctly, you however quoted such a source.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So, you don't oppose of getting rid of any pollution, but wish to have as much CO2 as possible?

No Im saying that CO2 is not pollution.


I insist that you reread it. Your comment on it demonstrates that you didn't read it, since you claim I said something I didn't.


Again I suggest you rephrase it as obviously Im too dumb to understand it the way it was written.


Huh? When did I ever quote a right wing extremist blogger

Where did you get all this junk from?


Compared to any previous geological events, this is 20 times faster, has a 5 times greater magnitude, and the effects are lasting, not temporary. That accounts for a quite significant difference. Additionally, all models, even those presented by the sceptics, show that CO2 increase will cause warming, but with a delay - i.e. the effects of today's CO2 emissions will not become apparent until in years, decades, centuries or even millenia from now. Depending on how great the delay is, we could be in really serious irreversible trouble.

Secondly, very few, even among the most sceptical, are arguing the following statements:
1. currently we have a global warming that is 20 times faster and with 5 times greater magnitude with lasting effects than any known event in the geological past

2. the CO2 levels are currently increasing towards levels present far back in time, when earth was unsuitable to human life, especially life for people with white skin

3. higher CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) levels in the atmosphere will alone, if we assume this is the only change made, cause higher temperature equilibrium on earth than without it. This means unless a CO2 increase is coupled with a counter-effect, temperature will increase as CO2 emissions increase. Here, plenty of global warming sceptics are speculating wildly with little evidence and incomplete models. One example:
"When trees are chopped down and desertification increases, this will give the earth surface a different color where the desert arises, and this could perhaps reflect light better than does a forest, and therefore perhaps the deforestation could, to some extent, compensate part of the global warming effect caused by less CO2 being bound as the trees are chopped down. "
However this is pure speculation. Unless it can be proven that the effect of desert colored ground compensates the less CO2 bound fully, this won't solve the problem.

4. in the earliest days of earth, when most coal was unbound and free in the air, temperatures were incredibly higher - earth was a hell of lightnings, fires and lava. The most complex form of life that could exist, were RNA strings without capsules, i.e. an organism more primitive than one-cell organisms, difficult to at all call a life form.

The binding of the coal to living organisms who would die and be bound below earth surface as sediment is what crucially decreased temperatures enough to allow the appearance of plants and animals. Additional crucial coal binding below earth surface was required before human beings could live on earth.

Now we're digging up that bound coal, and freeing it into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

5. evolution allows humans and other species to adapt to changes, including climate changes, but there's no way evolution can cope with a massive change in temperature over less than 1,000 years, without resulting in mass death with very small survival chances for most species, including humans. Human beings, despite technology, has no advantage over other animals in this case: our evolution is no faster than for other animals.

6. in cold weather, we can use heating mechanisms (that emit greenhouse gases and increase earth temperature) and clothes to compensate for the cold. In hot climate, we have no way of colding ourselves except by air conditioning, which increases CO2 emissions even more, and increases the temperature even more ad absurdum.

7. pollution is strongly correlated to temperature increase. This correlation is significant, because of the 20 times faster rate of increase than in any geological event seen in the past, it's 5 times greater magnitude, and the fact that the correlation fits so closely.

8. sun cycles, which were taken as a counter-example to global warming a few years back, have been counter-proven. In fact, we are currently in a low activity part of the sun cycle, and that would suggest a temperature decrease. Despite this, the temperature continues to increase rapidly. This suggests that the sun cycles account for very little of the climate changes.

9. a provably higher percentage of CO2 and other greenhouse gases than the pre-industrialization levels have been emitted into the atmopshere.

Currently, we anually emit around 2% of the entire amount of CO2 already present in the atmosphere. That means we double the amount of CO2 in the atmopshere in 50 years.

[Franconicus]

Hadn't had the intention to start the 'global warming' debate once again. Well, now that it has gone so far, I can add my point of view.

I have to admit that I haven't red so many sources as Gawain has, haven't even seen the Al Gore movie, but I follow the topic for quite a while.

I did my final thesis in Physics in 1994. There I had to do some literature research about mulecular spectroscopy. Accidentially I also found some articles about the effect of the Ozone hole from the 70ies. Sientists predicted the existence and the effect quite clear. However, until the 90ies, they were widely ignored. Then there were news about blind soals and increase of skin cancer, so that the studies could not be ignored any longer.

In 1995 I attended a presentation at the Technical University of Munich about global warming. Lecturer was a scientist of the Fraunhofer Institute (an institute with an excellent scientific reputation).

The lecture was done in a very scientific way: these are the facts, these are the assumptions, this is a best case scenario and so on. Not the polemics, that usually accompanies topics like that.

Nevertheless, or should I say, because of that, the impression was frightening. Although many things were still uncertain, even best case scenarios showed that there would be a warming, that would change the world significantly.

At the end one student asked the lectorer, why he went on working on that field, if the chances to stop the warming were so low. The answer was: "I do not want to tell my children, that I hadn't tried everything!"

Today the speed and the effect of the warming is still vague. Nevertheless, the signs are clear that there is a global warming.

Today, some say that the global warming is due to natural facts. To me this is only a lame excuse to do nothing. What we see today is exactly what scientists had predicted more than a decade ago.

Even longer we know that CO2 rises the absorption of thermal radiation. More CO2 will lead to a new equilibrium, that means a higher temperature of the earth.

If I am sitting in a water pot and someone tells me that there is a fire under that pot and I find out that the temperature is rising, then I can either argue that the rise of temperature can result from a sunny day or I can start thinking how I can leave that pot!:scared:

[Xiahou]

What are you, when you oppose getting rid of most of the pollution even though it won't come with any disadvantages at all?
Complete, unsubstantiated nonsense. :dizzy2:


What we see today is exactly what scientists had predicted more than a decade ago.
I'd love to see those predictions- they're certainly news to me.

[Odin]

If I am sitting in a water pot and someone tells me that there is a fire under that pot and I find out that the temperature is rising, then I can either argue that the rise of temperature can result from a sunny day or I can start thinking how I can leave that pot!:scared:

Point taken.

But one little bit to add, when "leaving the pot" requires an equlibrium change on other matters (oil based economy), it behooves you to discuss why it is rising.

Technically your point is dead on, we are chatting up the cause no the solution, but verification of the cause has merit, given the sexy conclusions drawn thus far (to much fossil fuel use) would have serious economic, political and social impact.

Of course you dont see the many of the environmentalist addressing the impact of changing the fossil fuel system. Its mainly "we have to change" and thats where they run into credability issues.

Anyone can look at the sky, point at it and proclaim its blue.

[Franconicus]

...Of course you dont see the many of the environmentalist addressing the impact of changing the fossil fuel system. Its mainly "we have to change" and thats where they run into credability issues. ...

That is exactly why I started this thread.

I think we have a problem and it is clear to me that we have to act. No problem to analyze the root cause, the measures and the effects. However, it seems to me that the deniers know that the there is a global warming caused by mankind, but they rather pretend they didn't, because then they can go on living like they used to do. Do nothing without bad conscience, you know?

[Odin]

That is exactly why I started this thread.

I think we have a problem and it is clear to me that we have to act. No problem to analyze the root cause, the measures and the effects. However, it seems to me that the deniers know that the there is a global warming caused by mankind, but they rather pretend they didn't, because then they can go on living like they used to do. Do nothing without bad conscience, you know?

Yes i know, thats why earlier I proposed a simple solution that allows everyone to continue to burn thier oil. Deforestation should be the primary focus for the solution of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Tree's hold CO2, the economic impact of somehow subsidising tree farms seems to me at first blush, much less then decreasing fossil fuel consumption, at this time anyway.

[Sigurd]

That is exactly why I started this thread.

I think we have a problem and it is clear to me that we have to act. No problem to analyze the root cause, the measures and the effects. However, it seems to me that the deniers know that the there is a global warming caused by mankind, but they rather pretend they didn't, because then they can go on living like they used to do. Do nothing without bad conscience, you know?

I know I have complained about the effects this change has already brought to us (the Norwegians) and continues to effect us. We are self sufficient on fuels and exports most of it (the surplus). But still, we have one of the highest petrol prices in the world.
True, we have an average hourly wage that allows us to buy about 11 litres of it, but I still feel it unjust that it matters nothing on a world basis.
The main responsibilities lie with industry on-shore and off to do emission reductions that would actually make a global difference.
But as Odin mentioned, the costs of investing in emission reductions will have to be transported to the consumers. There will be an increase on my electric bill when they invest billions in CO2 capturing technology for the power plants.
(As a side note; our clean water based power is no longer sufficient, our increasing demand for more power is incriminatory to our current power grid)

People are always opposing change; any consultant working with people and organisations knows this all too well.
You have to sell the benefits to them, how the change will help make it all better.
Pushing people against their will is the road to sabotage and strong opposition. Humanity has never been known to tolerate too much control and suppression.
I bet if they raised the gasoline prices in USA to a European level, a new civil war would tear that nation apart.

If we should change completely and shut down all fossil fuelled industry, what would be the result? Firstly the worth of a US dollar would be reduced to nothing since it is the petroleum that keeps it unnaturally high. Many nations that keep large amounts of this currency, those that buy petroleum and other fossil fuels would suddenly have a vault full of toilet paper.
Oh by the way before I forget, Coal is also sold in the US dollar currency, and the prices is today higher then it has ever been at about $80 a ton (norm. would be about $35).
Only economists would know the full ramification of such an event.
Secondly … (who knows)

Some say, nuclear power is clean and therefore an option, no?
I know nearly nothing about this but somehow the environmentalists think this is worse than fossil fuelled power.
There is a new hype of Thorium based reactors, a nuclear substance that is much ‘cleaner’ then the uranium based ones. Yes of course there have been found large deposits of this material in Norway, and they are planning a whole new industry based on this which means more money into our, already so big that it can never be used because the inflation it will cause, slush fund.

What about the developing countries, shouldn’t we place nuclear plants in those countries as well, to ensure a real global reduction of climate gas emission?
Oh noez, that means they could develop weapons of mass destruction. Oh yeah, what about Thorium reactors – you can’t build bombs with Thorium, can you?

If Europe goes ahead and take action – say reducing their emissions with just less than 30%, would that make a difference globally? Note that this reduction will cause a lot of economic and social upheaval in Europe. Will the rest of the world have to follow?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes i know, thats why earlier I proposed a simple solution that allows everyone to continue to burn thier oil. Deforestation should be the primary focus for the solution of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Tree's hold CO2, the economic impact of somehow subsidising tree farms seems to me at first blush, much less then decreasing fossil fuel consumption, at this time anyway.
I agree, but that requires a halt in population growth, because the deforested areas are usually deforested to be used for growing food, or as a consequence of letting loose a lot of cattle in the area, i.e. both results of trying to feed the growing world population. Alternatively, if population growth can't be halted now, we can compensate the warming from deforestation by cutting pollutions a bit, but that is only a temporary solution. Eventually, it will be necessary to halt population growth, if war and disaster is to be avoided.

The thing about the global warming discussion is that it involves not just the warming, but additional intertwined environmental problems, that have a potential of completely disrupting and eliminating necessary resource supply chains for food, water and shelter for human beings. "Fixing" one problem in a way that increases another, is not a solution. In the end, the unchecked growth of the human population is going to be necessary to change, preferably this time peacefully, instead of through wars.

[Odin]

[QUOTE]I agree, but that requires a halt in population growth, because the deforested areas are usually deforested to be used for growing food, or as a consequence of letting loose a lot of cattle in the area, i.e. both results of trying to feed the growing world population.

I agree in principle, but I do believe we have enough land to reforest for now to sustain the population and provide food. It would require resources but given the U.S. and EU farm subsidies already being handed out I think we could pull it off.

However I dont have any hard data to support the notion that forestation and a decrease in food production wont adversely affect populations. I know its not simple solution, but can we agree its simpler then the fossil fuel reduction issue?

Forestation dosent have to proclude us from reducing oil and coal consumption either, so maybe there is a balance somewhere to be had.


Alternatively, if population growth can't be halted now, we can compensate the warming from deforestation by cutting pollutions a bit, but that is only a temporary solution. Eventually, it will be necessary to halt population growth, if war and disaster is to be avoided.

This isnt meant to be callus, or to derail the topic but history, even mythology (biblical plaques) are filled with events that reduce the population. Now Im not advocating this, but it seems to me eventually the evolution of virus's (bird flu maybe?) is surpassing our own immune evolution, and the overpopulation issue might be self correcting.



The thing about the global warming discussion is that it involves not just the warming, but additional intertwined environmental problems, that have a potential of completely disrupting and eliminating necessary resource supply chains for food, water and shelter for human beings. "Fixing" one problem in a way that increases another, is not a solution. In the end, the unchecked growth of the human population is going to be necessary to change, preferably this time peacefully, instead of through wars.

Okay, I'll concede that a band aid on a cut that needs stiches isnt the best possible scenario, but if I agree with you that population growth is the main factor that needs to be -checked- thats a deeply complex issue delving into many potential avenues of belief systems, economic situations, basically which ethnic group is more valuable...

For now I'll take the band aid Legio, but I'll concede on your point of population growth as thee major factor going forward.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I agree in principle, but I do believe we have enough land to reforest for now to sustain the population and provide food. It would require resources but given the U.S. and EU farm subsidies already being handed out I think we could pull it off.

If every nation had the forrests we do this argument wouldnt even be happening then? The US has more than its share.


Alternatively, if population growth can't be halted now

Again the US and Europe are the last ones that need address this problem.

So like many of us have been saying your looking at the wrong nations. Were taking care of these so called problems yet Kyoto and the rest are aimed mainly at us. It makes no sense.

[Vladimir]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Yeah, global warming is exactly like gravity, eh? Just a theory ~:)



http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark_energy_050228.html



...

Dvali would modify the theory of gravity so that the universe becomes self-accelerating, eliminating the need for dark energy. He presented his work here earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Dvali borrows from string theory, which states that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the four we are familiar with: three directions and time. String theory suggests that gravitons -- hypothetical elementary particles transmitting gravitational forces -- can escape to other dimensions. Dvali says this would cause "leaks" in gravity over cosmic proportions, reducing gravitational pull at larger distances more than expected.

...

[et al]



*sigh*

So sure of themselves are the youth.

[Odin]

If every nation had the forrests we do this argument wouldnt even be happening then? The US has more than its share.

Your nationalism is inspiring, really no sarcasm. However not all countries have the resources we do to pull it off. No we shouldnt pay for them to do it, but some alternative has to happen, because if this global warming doom and gloom scenario we keep hearing about is even remotely true, the cost will be far more then we can bare anyway.


Again the US and Europe are the last ones that need address this problem.

True, mother nature has a way of balancing things out. Notice the SARS and bird flu cases are happening in asia?


So like many of us have been saying your looking at the wrong nations. Were taking care of these so called problems yet Kyoto and the rest are aimed mainly at us. It makes no sense.

No kyoto is rather silly, jefferson never wanted us in entangling treaties anyway, neither do I. But, we arent doing enough on our own Gawain, at least IMHO and pointing the finger at others and proclaiming they must do more is not going to get it done.

[Rodion Romanovich]

[irrelevant bs]

I referred to the effect of falling towards the ground when you jump from a high cliff or building, not to elementary sub-microscopic level forces of the universe. I dare say it's quite certain that falling from a 100 meter high cliff without having anything that increases air resistance will kill you, and that this is not just a theory but a fact. However, I can't prove it for sure for all cases and all time, just like nothing can be proven for sure. Can you even prove that "theory" means what it means? Philosophically, one can ask if one isn't just hearing voices in the head, or imagining the texts one reads, according to solopsism.

In a way, your post is a quite good example of the way of thinking demonstrated by the global warming deniers. An observation shows that under extreme conditions the model presented by the environmental friendly side is wrong in the 100th decimal, and the pollution supporters take that as proof that the entire model is useless. *sigh* These young people, thinking they contribute greatly to a discussion by adding linguistic twists or pointing out an error in the 10th decimal place. :laugh4:

[Vladimir]

yet another

*sigh*

The point is that yes gravity IS still a theory and that your stance on is as firm as the position you're taking here. You're so sure of yourself that you're setting yourself up for failure. Even something such as gravity, which we have been studying for hundreds of years, is still a complex, developing theory. We have been studying global warming and CO2 emissions for a fraction of that time and yet you're just as sure about is as you are of gravity. That's the lesson.

Great response by the way...What's with the smilie wars?

As for me, I'm investing in beachfront property in Colorado. :sharky: Elk are much easier to hunt when they're trapped on little islands. :rifle:

[Rodion Romanovich]

The point is that yes gravity IS still a theory
The point is that this is believed by the general consensus of experts to be irrelevant to whether you'll die or not if you jump off a 100 meter cliff without any air resistance-increasing device. However, there's always room for uncertainty - nothing can be proven for sure according to philosophy (heck, not even that can be proven for sure :laugh4: ). If we are to bring the tiresome "nothing can be proven" philosophical discussion into this debate, perhaps we should start by asking ourselves what justification at all we have for questioning solopsism? :laugh4: :laugh4: And continue to ask ourselves how the pollution supporting side can be so sure of it's "facts" and so sure that the opposing side has got all facts wrong :laugh4:

[Vladimir]

:laugh4: :laugh4: And why the pollution supporting side can be so sure of it's "facts" and sure that the opposing side has got all facts wrong :laugh4:

Forget CO2 reduction. We need to reduce the *N*2 O levels.

[Rodion Romanovich]

We need to reduce the *N*2 O levels.
Indeed, and CH4 as well

[Franconicus]

... People are always opposing change; ...

True! Even more than that - it's wise!

However, things are changing; they will change more rapidly and completly soon. CO2 reduction is the only way to slow down the speed of change.

[Sigurd]

Forget CO2 reduction. We need to reduce the *N*2 O levels.

Sorry M8...

All though N2O is one of the six greenhouse gases we need to reduce, it is CO2 that we emit most.
As an example:
Of the total greenhouse gas emissions Carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide)(CO2) counts for 70%, Methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane)(CH4) for 18%, Nitrus oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrus_oxide) (N2O) for 8%, Perfluorocarbons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorocarbons)(PFCs) for 3%, Sulphur hexafluoride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_hexafluoride)(SF6) for 1% and Hydrofluorocarbons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluorocarbons) (HFCs) for 0,4%

[Gawain of Orkeny]

However, things are changing; they will change more rapidly and completly soon. CO2 reduction is the only way to slow down the speed of change.

Kill off all the useless species then :laugh4:
Maybe a nice war will do,

The earth will cool again and your descendants will yearn for these times. There is no proof that we are causing global warming.

[Franconicus]

If you kill off all useless species, there will be no descendants.~;)

[Xiahou]

If you kill off all useless species, there will be no descendants.~;)
I'll quote Dogbert (http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20070619.html).

Stop eating, breathing, driving, defecating and procreating. Sit in the dark and decompose on some garden seeds. Or do you admit you hate earth?:beam:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Population growth is always the key. More people use more resources (readily renewable and otherwise). If there is a by-product to this resource consumption that has a negative impact (as many suggest CO2 does), then that negative impact will increase along with population.

However, little can be done to change the population of the "developed" world. Birth rates throughout Europe and among tech/econ advantaged nations are fairly low, even where population density/economic opportunity are not particularly limited (e.g. USA, where our bith rate is roughly one-third of that of Gaza or Sierra Leone). Such nations are at or near "zero" growth levels as it is.

However, almost without exception, wherever economic opportunity is minimal and/or political strife rampant, the birth rates are enormous. This virtually guarantees that whatever resources are available will be exploited in the most direct -- and usually most polluting -- format available. I suspect it is unreasonable to assume that we can get birth-rates lowered in these regions, despite the fact that decreasing population pressure IN THESE AREAS would be of greatest benefit.

Assuming CO2 really is the enemy upon which we should focus our efforts (shortest "washout" time among greenhouse gasses; greatest concentrations after water vapor), and assuming that altering this CO2 emission will have a significant impact on climate (this is the most debated portion of the issue), the only area economically capable of making significant alterations in CO2 emission are the developed nations, and that only at some significant economic cost.

The problem again is the developing nations. Will they slow their growth in order to be emission friendly for all? I submit that, facing popoulation pressure as they do and undoubtedly tired of being among the "have nots," these nations will NOT alter any growth strategies and will only willingly address the issue once they have achieved measurable economic improvement. Since the vast bulk of the pollutants will be coming from these areas over the next few decades (China will surpass USA's emissions within the decade and India is not too far behind), we need some different strategies than those advocated in Kyoto.

Planting trees on disused land -- an obvious plus on a bunch of levels and relatively cheap -- should be a no-brainer.

Working to increase the use of "renewable" electricity sources -- again, a no-brainer, though not cheap. Note, however, Siggy's post that suggests it will NOT be enough.

Nuclear power would seem to be an obvious answer over the next century, but I have already read articles wherein some of the enviro-green types decry this as just as bad for the atmosphere (I'm inclined to dismiss their objections, but I'm only part way through some of the web-sites, so I reserve final judgement). However, nuclear fission consumes resources that are also functionally finite and cannot solve the problem forever.

In the long run, I suspect it is the research and development abilities -- aided by our power-hungry computers -- that will provide the "new" answers needed. Our current socio-political framework makes efforts at simple reduction unlikely to succeed long-term.

[Sigurd]

That said there is one thing we can do, and that is work towards decreasing deforestation. Just an example, in 1600 about a billion acres of the US was forest, in 1962 it was 762 million acre's. source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oldgrowth3.jpg).

There was a decent analysis done here (http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm#11)when you scroll down a little you see that "Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually -- or 2.6 tons per acre each year."

So per this study the theory bares out, if the numbers are accurate. So you specifically cant plant a tree or two and that will most likely cover your CO2 emission (you seem like a pretty clean guy Sigurd).
and


In order to decrease carbon emissions by 33 percent, we would have to remove every existing car and truck from the road (yes, that includes your hybrid), ground every airplane, and shut down every gas station in the United States. In order to bump up from there to a 73-percent decrease in emissions, we would have to shut down most of our electrical grid, with the exception of areas supplied only by nuclear plants, windmills, and dams.

I am sorry I have to rip up this again...
Why do you (not the original posters of the quotes but you as in people having something to say about greenhouse gases) focus on the people of the nation... how much CO2 each citizen of a nation is emitting?

From Odin's quote it says that the people of the US are generating about 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. I bet that is accurate. And then the solution is to plant an acre of trees pr capita to balance it all....
Well that is not the total US emission number pr capita. If you dump the industry numbers in there you suddenly get a 20,18 ton pr capita and hence need 10 times as much acres of trees.

As of the article in Alexander’s post it clearly refers to the 20,18 ton pr capita…
It basically says you have to just stop living to meet the Kyoto agreement (which bytehway US has withdrawn from).

Hello!!!?
There is so much you can do to reduce significantly without touching the everyday life of us mere mortals.

The Kyoto agreement says: Reduce emission to about 5 percent lower than your 1990 level.
For the US this is down to a 4763 Mega ton level. I don’t really know what the current US emission level is today but it was 5912 mega tons in 2004. That is an increase of 1149 mega tons or about 20%.
Remember the agreement applies to the 2012 numbers… Those bound to this agreement have a serious task at hand.

And again I propose that money strong nations help the large contributors of CO2 emission in the developing countries (including China) to reduce their quota (Kyoto agreement)

The numbers I use I got from EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/environment.html). There are two interesting Excel sheets that are particular interesting even though the numbers are old (2004)
It is the Total Emissions sheet and the Per capita Emissions.

You see that even though India and China are two of the top 5 emitters (1113 and 4707 mega ton) they have a low emission pr capita (1.04 and 3,62 ton). Norway which is pretty low on the total emission (51 mega ton) is high on the pr capita list (11 ton).

The top 5 emitters are (2004 numbers in mega tons):
US ------ 5 912,21
China ----4 707,28
Russia --- 1 684,84
Japan --- 1 262,10
India ---- 1 112,84

The latest news is that China has already passed USA.

[Odin]

and

I am sorry I have to rip up this again...
Why do you (not the original posters of the quotes but you as in people having something to say about greenhouse gases) focus on the people of the nation... how much CO2 each citizen of a nation is emitting?

From Odin's quote it says that the people of the US are generating about 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. I bet that is accurate. And then the solution is to plant an acre of trees pr capita to balance it all....
Well that is not the total US emission number pr capita. If you dump the industry numbers in there you suddenly get a 20,18 ton pr capita and hence need 10 times as much acres of trees.

As of the article in Alexander’s post it clearly refers to the 20,18 ton pr capita…
It basically says you have to just stop living to meet the Kyoto agreement (which bytehway US has withdrawn from).

Hello!!!?
There is so much you can do to reduce significantly without touching the everyday life of us mere mortals.

The Kyoto agreement says: Reduce emission to about 5 percent lower than your 1990 level.
For the US this is down to a 4763 Mega ton level. I don’t really know what the current US emission level is today but it was 5912 mega tons in 2004. That is an increase of 1149 mega tons or about 20%.
Remember the agreement applies to the 2012 numbers… Those bound to this agreement have a serious task at hand.

And again I propose that money strong nations help the large contributors of CO2 emission in the developing countries (including China) to reduce their quota (Kyoto agreement)

The numbers I use I got from EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/environment.html). There are two interesting Excel sheets that are particular interesting even though the numbers are old (2004)
It is the Total Emissions sheet and the Per capita Emissions.

You see that even though India and China are two of the top 5 emitters (1113 and 4707 mega ton) they have a low emission pr capita (1.04 and 3,62 ton). Norway which is pretty low on the total emission (51 mega ton) is high on the pr capita list (11 ton).

The top 5 emitters are (2004 numbers in mega tons):
US ------ 5 912,21
China ----4 707,28
Russia --- 1 684,84
Japan --- 1 262,10
India ---- 1 112,84

The latest news is that China has already passed USA.


Well thats just it, at least for me the numbers can be painted any number of ways. Yet the will to act still remains with the individual at least in the U.S. as CO2 reduction is not yet on the national adgenda.

So breaking it down in terms of what an individual can do, is a grassroots approach that needs to take root to sprout a larger discussion. Again my perspective is an american one, and we have had our head up our rectums on this issue for a long time.

The numbers become the focus of the discussion, and what can be done on macro scales to combat this. While its fun banter, the will to enact, and the ability to enact major reform on CO2 emission is in its infancy here in the states, and I am willing to bet in the countries you listed as the top 5 emitters.

My brother in law is a Brit, and he has friends from London who know thier own "footprints". They know exactly what they emit via CO2 and actively take alternatives to reduce that footprint.

As I participate in these CO2 discussions thats how i try and frame my responses on an individual basis. I understand your followup post was not directed at me at all, but certainly you must be able to see that the issue is dynamic and frankly very large given the content of data.

The avarage bloke in London, Oslo, and Seattle are probably a lot a like in many regards but each one has a different awareness level of the CO2 issue. Dumbing down the conversation to the indvidual consumers level makes for a more viable long term positive outcome.

Sure the data bares out that reducing CO2 by 33% requires we remove all autos, okay, but thats a hard sell and when you frame it differently such as "planting 1 tree helps reduce CO2 into the atmosphere" thats a bit easier for the blokes to swallow, and actually do.

[Sigurd]

Sure the data bares out that reducing CO2 by 33% requires we remove all autos, okay, but thats a hard sell and when you frame it differently such as "planting 1 tree helps reduce CO2 into the atmosphere" thats a bit easier for the blokes to swallow, and actually do.

Yes I see your point of view, and I hope you see mine.

The article with the hopless 33% reduction black paints the issue and it clearly states that whatever you do, you will not be able to stop the inevitable.
It's like being informed that you have a terminal illness and that you will die no matter the treatment. What do you do? Ignore it and live a whole life in the time you have left.

I see your point in starting somewhere, with the people. We have done that and the mentality of the average people is to think green. But we have come to the point realising that whatever you do it makes for spit in the ocean. It is time for the government to act and demand that the industry starts taking actions with their emissions. This is where every nation has the most to gain from. The real reductions can't be done with everyday Joe or Ola Normann; not by a fraction.

We need to start with the coal industry, then move over to the oil and gas industry. Then Cement and Fertilizers. by then we might even have reached our goal.
The other way by starting with the people takes too long.

[Odin]

Yes I see your point of view, and I hope you see mine.

The article with the hopless 33% reduction black paints the issue and it clearly states that whatever you do, you will not be able to stop the inevitable.
It's like being informed that you have a terminal illness and that you will die no matter the treatment. What do you do? Ignore it and live a whole life in the time you have left.

I see your point in starting somewhere, with the people. We have done that and the mentality of the average people is to think green. But we have come to the point realising that whatever you do it makes for spit in the ocean. It is time for the government to act and demand that the industry starts taking actions with their emissions. This is where every nation has the most to gain from. The real reductions can't be done with everyday Joe or Ola Normann; not by a fraction.

We need to start with the coal industry, then move over to the oil and gas industry. Then Cement and Fertilizers. by then we might even have reached our goal.
The other way by starting with the people takes too long.

Oh I see your point clearly, its compelling, to the degree I reply in earnst. I concede your point that ola normann wont get the reductions we need, on the scale we need in the time frame desired.

The alternative is massive overhaul of established (and viable) economic lever's. We can paint this anyway we want too, but India and china dont appear likely to throttle back thier industrial growth, the U.S. dosent appear willing to cut its dependence on oil.

Now this may seem defeatist, but without the willingness of government to act you have to change tactics here, that offensive isnt gaining traction. Envoking the tactic of ascribing a personal investment to individuals has thus far been the most successful tact.

While I dont think that should be the only tact taken here, the governments listed in the top 5 simply arent going to act unless forced by environmental reality, or by the people they represent.

I respect your position, and your right, but I feel that this is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse, there simply isnt a will to act on a macro governmental scale