CO2 Emission Reduction

[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?

[Rodion Romanovich]

In fact its not even disputed anymore.

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

[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

[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.

[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.

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?

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. 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.

[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. The temperature always goes up and then the C02 level.

I think you need to reread my post.

But left wing ones are.

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.

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?

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!

[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.

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!

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=LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix]

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]

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

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...gy_050228.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...

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.

[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. Elk are much easier to hunt when they're trapped on little islands.

[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 ). 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? 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

[Vladimir]

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

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