CO2 Emission Reduction

[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 (CO2) counts for 70%, Methane (CH4) for 18%, Nitrus oxide (N2O) for 8%, Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) for 3%, Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) for 1% and 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
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.

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

[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.

There was a decent analysis done here 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. 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. 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