Atmospheric CO2 Levels Rise Sharply Despite COVID-19 Lockdowns 196
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen strongly to a new peak this year, despite the impact of the global effects of the coronavirus crisis. The Guardian reports: The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 417.2 parts per million in May, 2.4ppm higher than the peak of 414.8ppm in 2019, according to readings from the Mauna Loa observatory in the US. Without worldwide lockdowns intended to slow the spread of Covid-19, the rise might have reached 2.8ppm, according to Ralph Keeling, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He said it was likely they had played a small role, but that the difference was too small to show up against other factors causing year-to-year fluctuations.
Daily emissions of carbon dioxide fell by an average of about 17% around the world in early April, according to the a comprehensive study last month. As lockdowns are eased, however, the fall in emissions for the year as a whole is only likely to be only between 4% and 7% compared with 2019. That will make no appreciable difference to the world's ability to meet the goals of the Paris agreement, and keep global heating below the threshold of 2C that scientists say is necessary to stave off catastrophic effects. If emissions reductions of 20% to 30% were sustained for six to 12 months, then the rate of increase of CO2 measured at Mauna Loa would slow, according to the Scripps scientists.
Daily emissions of carbon dioxide fell by an average of about 17% around the world in early April, according to the a comprehensive study last month. As lockdowns are eased, however, the fall in emissions for the year as a whole is only likely to be only between 4% and 7% compared with 2019. That will make no appreciable difference to the world's ability to meet the goals of the Paris agreement, and keep global heating below the threshold of 2C that scientists say is necessary to stave off catastrophic effects. If emissions reductions of 20% to 30% were sustained for six to 12 months, then the rate of increase of CO2 measured at Mauna Loa would slow, according to the Scripps scientists.
We Need To Stop Using Fossil Fuels (Score:5, Insightful)
But, fossil fuels are the cheap energy we need to keep millions of people out of poverty. Expensive renewable energy just plunges millions of folks into poverty. Poverty kills.
The best thing we could do to help ourselves, beyond the obvious need for breakthroughs in cheap renewable energy, is to shut down the nimbys that delay and make more expensive the development of non-CO2-emitting sources of electrical energy. Electrical energy is our cheapest form of energy. We should go all-in on electrical energy for everything possible, from the grid to automotive uses.
Meanwhile, those trying to stop nuclear power need their asses kicked (out of court.) Those trying to stop solar farms need their asses kicked. Those trying to stop power lines need their asses kicked. Those trying to stop wind turbines need their asses kicked.
Its time to stop with the "my property value" whine for people that move out in the country. You move out in the country, you don't have the right to stop needed progress when someone needs to build something, like power lines, wind turbines, solar farms, nuclear power plants, etc. Don't want to deal with those things? Move back into the city where your tender ass belongs. Country living isn't for wimps.
Re: (Score:3)
But, fossil fuels are the cheap energy we need to keep millions of people out of poverty. Expensive renewable energy just plunges millions of folks into poverty. Poverty kills.
The best thing we could do to help ourselves, beyond the obvious need for breakthroughs in cheap renewable energy, is to shut down the nimbys that delay and make more expensive the development of non-CO2-emitting sources of electrical energy. Electrical energy is our cheapest form of energy. We should go all-in on electrical energy for everything possible, from the grid to automotive uses.
Meanwhile, those trying to stop nuclear power need their asses kicked (out of court.) Those trying to stop solar farms need their asses kicked. Those trying to stop power lines need their asses kicked. Those trying to stop wind turbines need their asses kicked.
Its time to stop with the "my property value" whine for people that move out in the country. You move out in the country, you don't have the right to stop needed progress when someone needs to build something, like power lines, wind turbines, solar farms, nuclear power plants, etc. Don't want to deal with those things? Move back into the city where your tender ass belongs. Country living isn't for wimps.
I see this has already been modded way down and I only have 1 mod point, so, THIS!
Nobody has a right to trade their personal "property value" for the entire future of the planet. A few pylons or wind turbines in the distance isn't going to affect your quality of life at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: We Need To Stop Using Fossil Fuels (Score:2)
I'm total electric, 1700 sq ft house, electric bill less than $100 currently. About $160 last winter. For the entire house, including heat. You just have to do it right. (Geothermal)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In Southern California, we pay about $0.28 per Therm for gas [socalgas.com] (a Therm is 100,000 BTUs [wikipedia.org]). There are about 30 kW per therm [metric-conversions.org]. We pay around $0.21 to $0.27 per kW for power [sce.com] for most cases.
Assuming a 30% conversion (insanely low) from Therms to actual BTUs for natural gas, a 100% efficiency for electricity conversion from power to BTUs, and a $0.21/kWh for electricity (the low end), we'd spend 7 times as much heating with electricity as we would with natural gas. it's incredibly expensive here to use electricit
Re:We Need To Stop Using Fossil Fuels (Score:5, Insightful)
If you live in Southern California you probably have aircon. A heat pump is much more efficient than resistive heating, ie. a kW goes further.
If you insulate your house well then you don't need much of either. Which is the point being made. The size of your heating/cooling bill is directly proportional to how much of it is escaping the building.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the number of heating degree days in Southern California and the high efficiency of heat pumps, the “cost savings” of having a gas furnace are minimal.
The same goes for hot water heating.
If you cook a lot (12+ hours per week with multiple burners) then maybe you can make a case for gas to the house, but adding solar and going all electric is still cheaper— with tax incentives the LCOE from a solar + battery system today is around $0.07-10.
Re: (Score:2)
What's next, you're telling us that harnessing the power of wind takes energy out of the wind, thus disrupting the heat currents and the air so it contributes to warming?
I mean sure, technically it does, but compared to the impact of fossil fuel alternatives it's ridiculous to even bring it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you know that's true for everything in this universe. So we have to weigh it against other approaches that could be used to satisfy our energy needs.
Likewise wind turbines kill a tiny fraction of birds, while the associated power lines that go with it kill a significant number of birds. But that's mostly happening due to poor placement.
Why is there dumb placement and planning? Because altern
Re:We Need To Stop Using Fossil Fuels (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure. We should consider the total impact, and nuclear is extremely minimal. Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California sits on 12 acres - and provides 9% of all of California's electricity. For the space of 130 football fields, we could have 100% of our electrical demands met - and it would be incredibly reliable, too. We could eliminate a vast number of the high-voltage power lines and transmission lines as well, since we could site the plants nearer population center (demand use) rather than in a pass somewhere there is a decent amount of wind.
Grids need to have massive amounts of dispatchable power; wind and solar are NOT dispatchable. At best, you MAY get to replace a few peaker stations - but even that is a gamble as your supply may not be available when needed, and that means brownouts/blackouts. IF there was a reasonable storage solution, renewables could work. Or if they were used for things that could be buffered up, like fresh water (using renewable power to desalinate water for ground-aquifer injection). Other than that - any grid will, by necessity of reliability, need to have a massive amount (over 95% of grid demand) of dispatchable power sources - and that means NOT renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, those trying to stop nuclear power need their asses kicked (out of court.)
Blah. blah, nuculaaar
Re: (Score:2)
Real Engineering just released a video explaining the economics of nuclear, but it also covers renewables and why they are taking over. Power companies are even shutting down natural gas plants in favour of renewable energy.
https://youtu.be/UC_BCz0pzMw [youtu.be]
Basically you don't get cheaper than renewables + storage. Some natural gas might hang on but everything else is too expensive to be viable.
Inertia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if Carbon dioxide gets actively pulled out of the atmosphere, Carbon dioxide levels will fall. Currently, we have two strong Carbon dioxide sequ
Re:Inertia (Score:4, Funny)
Plant mass on Earth doesn;t have to be growing, if you cut most of it down and make tables out of it, you've trapped that carbon in a nice coffee table.
The people doing the most harm to climate change are those with glass and metal coffee tables. Burn those heretics!
Re: (Score:2)
The people doing the most harm to climate change are those with glass and metal coffee tables.
Burn those heretics!
That will just release the CO2.
We need to sequester them deep in old abandoned oil wells.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And the whole plant mass on Earth is not growing, thus plants in total don't pull more Carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than they add when they die and decay.
This isn't true, even though it makes sense at first sight. When it decays, plants turn into soil (or sink in the ocean). And the soil just piles on top of itself. If you till soil and turn it over some of the Carbon in is released; in fact, this form of soil erosion is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. But, for example, forest, either wild or managed, even when it has reached it grow to it's apex, so that trees dying equal trees growing, still removes carbon for many, many years, and perhaps indefin
Re: (Score:2)
And the whole plant mass on Earth is not growing
Some folks at NASA disagree.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g... [nasa.gov]
Are we going to talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we have more nuclear power now? No? Then expect atmospheric CO2 to keep going up.
I'll believe politicians are taking this rising of CO2 levels seriously when they pull out all the stops on nuclear power plant construction.
Re: (Score:3)
No, we need to spend the money where it is going to have maximum impact, not piss it away on over-priced nuclear power that still has significant CO2 output and unsolved waste problems.
The EU is actually making an effort to do what we want, carbon neutral by 2050 with a realistic plan and demonstrated ability to put it into action. Nuclear isn't really part of the solution there, the biggest fan of it (France) is moving to renewables and the current new builds are all over budget, late and likely to white e
Re: (Score:2)
No, we need to spend the money where it is going to have maximum impact, not piss it away on over-priced nuclear power that still has significant CO2 output and unsolved waste problems.
I'd like to point out that renewables right now have an unsolved waste problem (and an unsolved incentive problem) too, with much higher waste volumes than nuclear. The actual approach, even in the EU, is waiting and see if ten years from now will there be the right technology to recycle all that stuff. I bet there will not be (if someone care, I can explain why).
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it be hard to recycle scrap metal? We already have lots of large metal structures being recycled, e.g. aircraft and building frames.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it be hard to recycle scrap metal? We already have lots of large metal structures being recycled, e.g. aircraft and building frames.
Because wind blades are made of composite materials [recyclingi...tional.com], which are actually cheaper to just park in landfills [coloradosun.com]. On top of that, thanks to the wind turbines craze, wind turbines are getting placed where they are easier built up than they will be build down [ftcdn.net].
For PV it is even worse, the lack of standardization (which cannot be achieved, by the way, given the different manufacturers and the evolving technology) makes the photovoltaic panels practically impossible to recycle.
Re: (Score:2)
The blades have a lifespan of several decades. Besides, the point about the aircraft still stands, with them becoming more and more composite and having comparable lifespans.
Re: (Score:2)
The blades have a lifespan of several decades. Besides, the point about the aircraft still stands, with them becoming more and more composite and having comparable lifespans.
Then you should know that there is a rising recycling problem for aircraft [www.composites.media] right now. However with wind blades we are further down the path, because wind blades have an average lifespan of 20 years, while aircraft have 30 years. Wind blades have also a few years of head start compared to composite aircraft (mostly due to longer certification processes for aircraft). Moreover the 30 years lifespan for aircraft is usually (and hopefully) quite conservative, while the 20 years lifespan for wind blades not as m
Re: (Score:2)
I mean who is going to pay 2x more for nuclear power when they have a choice?
If you do the research you'll find a large part of the cost of nuclear is down to the NIMBYs and that fact that they're being built by private investors who want massive returns on their 20-year investments (the time it takes to build the plant).
Back when they were built by governments they were much cheaper because there was no requirement for the ROI to garantee beat the stock market over that timescale.
Re:Are we going to talk about solutions? (Score:4, Interesting)
No NIMBYs for Hinkley C, it was an already approved site adjacent to an existing reactor. Still had to be guaranteed an insane price for energy produced just to get someone to build it.
Re:Are we going to talk about solutions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fun fact: I actually worked on Hinkley C, doing a 3D model of all the new powerlines coming out of it.
It proves the point though. The construcion of new nuclear plants is being held back by people who want a guaranteed ROI vs. other investments. Even if we use the standard 12% stock market figure it make the plant cost about 20x more than actual construction costs so the electricity is 20x more expensive than it needs to be.
It would be much cheaper if paid for by taxes and there were fewer NIMBYs.
Re:Are we going to talk about solutions? (Score:5, Insightful)
It proves the point though. The construcion of new nuclear plants is being held back by people who want a guaranteed ROI vs. other investments.
Wait, you want people to throw money at investments that look like they are going to lose money?
Given the choice of course they are going to invest in technologies that are not in decline and which stand a good chance of giving them a return. The thing about nuclear is it's not just the income from the generated energy that is in question, it's the cost of building and running the plant. Things often go wrong during construction and ever single plant being built in Europe is significantly over budget, often 2x over or more. And then when it's working you are committed to decades of fixing whatever goes wrong so you can get that return, all the while hoping that nothing goes wrong and no new problems are found that cut its life short or make clean up even more expensive than you planned for.
Re: (Score:2)
ever single plant being built in Europe is significantly over budget, often 2x over or more.
Nobody would invest if they did a *real* budget.
Re: (Score:2)
No NIMBYs for Hinkley C
Bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Still had to be guaranteed an insane price for energy produced just to get someone to build it.
That's what happens when a project gets delayed for a decade because of bullshit protests and lawsuits. They will need the money to cover things like defending lawsuits, construction delays from protests, increased security, and other costs from such bullshit.
Here's something to consider. How was it that Hinkley C was able to get this "insane" guaranteed price for energy? The answer is because it has more value. Windmills might be cheaper to build and operate b
Re: (Score:2)
No, the answer is because they tried every supplier and no one wanted to build it. In the end they had to get Chinese money in and guarantee that insane price and even then EDF was reluctant.
Re: (Score:2)
No NIMBYs for Hinkley C, it was an already approved site adjacent to an existing reactor. Still had to be guaranteed an insane price for energy produced just to get someone to build it.
Dunno about you blokes on the Island, but in the US - renewables are GUARANTEED purchases at their statutory rates - even if the power is not needed/wanted. That is a guarantee better than anything nuclear gets. A 100% guarantee to purchase at a fixed price whenever you decide/can produce power, whether the customer wants the power or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need to guarantee something that has no fuel costs to run? Once you have the panels and windmills, you don't need to buy wind or sun. Just let the market decide. You're all about the markets aren't you?
I would LOVE that! Problem is, no one will build renewable plants without these kinds of guarantees. That tells me there is one of 3 basic problems:
1. The startup costs are much higher than claimed (and they need the return)
2. The running costs are actually much higher than claimed (and they need the return>
3. No one wants to contract with a supplier who cannot deliver power when its needed, not just when it's convenient to deliver
My money is on number 3. Having a power supplier that cannot give
Re: (Score:2)
This just means that when the government build the plants some of the cost and risks were not properly accounted for.
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear power that still has significant CO2 output
I'm going to need to see a source for that. Here's mine-> http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
unsolved waste problems
Same as above -> http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"IPCC Working Group III â" Mitigation of Climate Change, Annex III: Technology - specific cost and performance parameters"
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/asset... [www.ipcc.ch]
Re: (Score:2)
You just proved you didn't comprehend what you provided as a source.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a low enough population density that it could probably live on renewables alone, even taking into account their low capacity factor, by covering all these deserts with solar panels and all the fields with wind turbines. It would probably be more expensive than going nuclear, though, and would support less growth. And Europe, let alone China, don't have that option; they must develop nuclear power or massively
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a low enough population density that it could probably live on renewables alone, even taking into account their low capacity factor, by covering all these deserts with solar panels and all the fields with wind turbines. It would probably be more expensive than going nuclear, though, and would support less growth. And Europe, let alone China, don't have that option; they must develop nuclear power or massively reduce their energy consumption (or keep burning fossil fuels, as long as they/we last).
In theory at least the USA and China are not that far apart in energy use per area.
Cite: http://www.inference.org.uk/ma... [inference.org.uk]
Things are different for many European nations, and in developing nations like China this will change as economic development drives energy consumption.
What's not listed on the graph linked to above on energy per area is nuclear power, which is about 1000 watts per square meter. Think about what this means in environmental impact.
Sure, nations like the USA could in theory satisfy their
Re: (Score:3)
Can we have more nuclear power now? No? Then expect atmospheric CO2 to keep going up.
I'll believe politicians are taking this rising of CO2 levels seriously when they pull out all the stops on nuclear power plant construction.
Let me see, so the options are: a CO2 induced extinction event, ... or drown in radioactive sludge ... what a wonderful choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure. If worst case scenarios are the *only* input into your decision-making.
Thank you China (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thank you China (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason "the developed nations" are able to "lower" their CO2 down is by exporting the CO2-intensive parts of their business to China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to get political but I notice that Trump isn't banging his shoe on the table demanding that all that stuff be brought back to America along with the manufacturing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Thank you China (Score:2)
Manufacturing moving to China happened decades before anyone raised the specter of climate change.
Subsequently, the main driver of the developed world's falling co2 is the implementation natural gas (which happened due to economics, not policy nor the hectoring from the eco Marxists). It has essentially nothing to do with manufacturing.
So no, your attempted "exploitation" narrative doesn't fit at all.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's much easier for America at 17 tons per person to drop to 16.8 tons per person and pat themselves on the back. Than to expect China to stay below 8, or India below 2.
Why should an America feel entitled to be twice to eight times as dirty as everyone else? CO2 [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The only reason "the developed nations" are able to "lower" their CO2 down is by exporting the CO2-intensive parts of their business to China."
Conversely, the only reason that the developed nations aren't offsetting their carbon production is that they can export the carbon-emitting processes to China, and then blame those emissions on someone else. We have numerous carbon fixing strategies available and we're only not using them because we can blame China instead, and the usual cast of creeps can still ge
Re: (Score:2)
The solution as usual when it comes to undesirable economic activity is a tax to make it unprofitable, which in this case should be spent on remediating the problem. Tax goods based on net carbon emissions regardless of where the goods come from, and you'll see manufacturing moving back home - and getting cleaner.
Sure, and watch living standards drop precipitously and the politicians who support such a thing be unceremoniously booted from office.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. China's per-capita production is half that of the the USA.
That's the only number that counts when you're mud-slinging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is per capita you are still 8x worse than a Chinese person? The earth doesn't care how you group people together, or where you drew an arbitrary border to self justify your horridly destructive lifestyle.
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is per capita you are still 8x worse than a Chinese person? The earth doesn't care how you group people together, or where you drew an arbitrary border to self justify your horridly destructive lifestyle.
8X worse? Are you referring to the USA? Where are you getting your numbers? According to this, [wikipedia.org] China's per capita emissions are 8.0 tons, and the USA is at 16.1 tons (as of 2018). I'm no mathematician, but I don't believe that's "8X worse than a Chinese person."
As far as "horridly destructive lifestyles" go, it bears noting that Australia's number comes in at 16.8 tons per capita.
I know you love to rail on the US, but you should be more careful about what you complain about - lest you end up looking l
Green initiatives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a microwave where you get a hot pockets in 3 minutes. Sadly the measure of CO2 concentration isn't a metric that gives us a complete picture.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because one of the ways we've reduced the US carbon footprint so much is by exporting the carbon-polluting processes to other countries. Our domestic laws say don't make so much carbon pollution, so our businesses export the work that makes carbon pollution to other countries. And then we point at them and complain about their carbon footprint.
If we want these products (which, apparently, we do
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer we cracked down on single-use plastics and other made-for-landfill plastic junk and outlaw its production or import into the US.
That's a nice little fantasy you have there. I seem to recall that because of the risk of spreading COVID-19 the local grocery store banned the used of re-used bags, meaning everything left the store carried in single use plastic bags. From what I hear on the radio and read on the internet this was a widespread policy. It's because of single use plastics we haven't seen more pandemics in the past.
The problem is not the use of plastics. The problem is that they are not disposed of properly. Plastic wast
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, there's no reason to be shitty about it. Yes, we should dispose of plastics more responsibly. Yes, we should reduce the use of single-use plastics. Yes, also, there's an acute reason why single-use plastics seem to be a good idea. There are also reasons to believe that single-use plastics are not as important as we thought at the start of the pandemic. Regardless, single-use plastics are usually a consumption of non-renewable resources, and we should use th
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, there's no reason to be shitty about it.
Sure there is. Nobody is going to outlaw anything plastic, not when the people that have to live with it have the ability to vote. If you want people to change how much plastic they use then offer something better. Offer the means to produce plastic from net zero carbon sources at a price that they'd be willing to pay. Offer the means to easily recycle plastic, or something to use instead of plastic. Again the prices paid for this needs to be something people are willing to bear.
If people can agree eno
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of money and effort have been spent to help reduce the world's total CO2 production. Why is it that this graph shoes no sign of change at all?
Because there are still a lot of people with the fantasy in their head that we can lower CO2 emissions without nuclear power. This fantasy requires another fantasy that nuclear power technology has not advanced since the 1980s. While the disaster at Fukushima was less than a decade ago all of the reactors destroyed were older than those at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. The risk of a meltdown at Fukushima was known but the inability of anyone in Japan to build a new nuclear or coal plant, because of the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The fantasy technology that does not exist (renewables) produced 244 TWh of electricity in Germany last year (https://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/).
Re: (Score:3)
(renewables) produced 244 TWh of electricity in Germany last year
So not even 50% of the consumed electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of money and effort have been spent to help reduce the world's total CO2 production. Why is it that this graph shoes no sign of change at all?
Because there are still a lot of people with the fantasy in their head that we can lower CO2 emissions without nuclear power. This fantasy requires another fantasy that nuclear power technology has not advanced since the 1980s. While the disaster at Fukushima was less than a decade ago all of the reactors destroyed were older than those at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. The risk of a meltdown at Fukushima was known but the inability of anyone in Japan to build a new nuclear or coal plant, because of the NIMBY mindset, forced it to keep operating to keep the lights on.
The rate of increase seems to be consistent despite our best efforts at change. You would think it would have at least slowed some?
It will slow down. It will just take a few more anti-progress, and anti-nuclear power, politicians to die off first. Progress comes one funeral at a time.
The Three Mile Island or Chernobyl and the meltdown at Fukushima FUBARs are only part of what makes people unenthusiastic about nuclear power. When was the last time you saw solar panels or wind turbines melt down and irradiate entire countries? There is also the question of where to put the toxic radioactive waste the answer to which question is usually 'not in my back yard' even when you ask the fanatical nuclear groupies. On top of that Nuclear is two to three times more expensive than anything else on t
Re: (Score:2)
The Three Mile Island or Chernobyl and the meltdown at Fukushima FUBARs are only part of what makes people unenthusiastic about nuclear power. When was the last time you saw solar panels or wind turbines melt down and irradiate entire countries?
That would be relevant if people intended to keep building nuclear reactors as they were in the 1970s.
That's like saying we shouldn't use solar power because PV cells from the 1970s sucked.
Re: (Score:2)
"Progress comes one funeral at a time." -- Blindseer, resident Slashdot nuclear shill
Actually it's from Max Planck.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... [wikiquote.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure who is paying him, but for myself the anti-nuclear people are one of the main reasons I don't give a shit about CO2.
Obviously not that big a problem if the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it that this graph shoes no sign of change at all?
I think it's pretty clear that (a) those initiatives have had an effect but (b) they amount to half-measures.
All things being equal, you'd expect CO2 emissions to be proportional to world GDP. From 1997 to 2017, World GDP grew from 45.4 trillion dollars to 80.25 -- a growth of 76%. Over the same period CO2 emissions grew from 61.3 gigatons to 89.4 Gt, about 46%.
So we're emitting much less carbon to produces a dollar of world GDP than we were twenty years ago, but that's still more carbon and the total volum
Easily explained! (Score:2, Funny)
Most traffic is people having "fun" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. I'll take my truck instead.
Australia was burning. (Score:4, Interesting)
May I remind everyone wondering where this came from that not even a year ago Australia was burning. Like, literally, the entire continent.
That may explain part of the hike in co Â.
Just saying.
Re:Australia was burning. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it had very little effect. Australia has high per capita emissions, but only a population of 25million people, and the bushfires *only doubled* the country's annual emissions.
Yes that's right. You're effectively saying that an event equivalent of the CO2 production from around 10 million Americans, had a massive effect on the world. Now I like to blame Americans a lot (and myself as an Australian too) for CO2 emissions, but man even we aren't *that* polluting.
The bushfires barely had an affect and don't forget fires lead to regrowth ultimately causing a large CO2 sink in the process.
It's not a popular opinion but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
People need to stop having so many children.
But the recent lockdowns may lead to exactly the opposite result. I anticipate that the upcoming baby boom in a dozen years or so will be known as the 'quaran-teens'.
Re: (Score:2)
People need to stop having so many children.
But the recent lockdowns may lead to exactly the opposite result.
There's also been a record amount of divorces. I also suspect those who already have children have zero interest in having any more of them after the lockdown.
Well, so much for ... (Score:2)
Small wonder (Score:3)
Instead of switching off the gas/oil heating at home and going to work in a large building with HVAC , people kept it on 24/7 and worked from home.
Re:...they said 50 years ago... and 40 years ago.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you have the choice between destroying the economy with the hope it will recover, and destroying the economy with the certainty that it won't recover anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:...they said 50 years ago... and 40 years ago.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no the earth is doomed in the next 10 years unless we take drastic measures to solve the problem...
Not taking drastic measures will destroy the economy too. That's the whole point.
Isn't it ALREADY destroyed?
Damn it, no. Pay attention, everybody. Nobody is saying that the Earth is doomed in the next ten years.
Real problems do exist. But, no, stop bring up that strawman that "the Earth is doomed"!
(measures that will cause the destruction of the economy and the deaths of countless citizens if implemented through authoritarian government overreach
The only people I hear proposing that it will take "authoritarian government overreach" to solve climate problems are right-wingers.
The core belief of (some) right wingers seems to be "there doesn't exist any possible way to solve climate problems except totalitarian government, therefore we shouldn't even attempt to solve them."
I would say that argument can be expressed as "my political ideology is incapable of solving real-world problems," but your mileage may vary.
.... rather than naturally through innovation)...
I like the "through innovation" approach. There are a lot of very good engineers out in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Not taking drastic measures will destroy the economy
This is not clearly established by science at all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just mainly pollutant's in general in the air that keep causing warming.
We need to make changes, simple changes that might be very very small
but on the grand scale of things cause change.
for example: only in the USA
10 year plan to reduce beef consumption on a per year basis. Null results unless
5% of the beef eating population does it, then you do start seeing changes
The yearly goal of planting 5 to 20 trees: null results until 3% of the population
starts then the effects might show up on a graph ( the n
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not taking drastic measures will destroy the economy too. That's the whole point.
Then it's a terrible point. The environment around cities is vastly improved relative to the 1800s, and our economy is orders of magnitude greater.
Re:...they said 50 years ago... and 40 years ago.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no the earth is doomed in the next 10 years unless we take drastic measures to solve the problem (measures that will cause the destruction of the economy and the deaths of countless citizens if implemented through authoritarian government overreach rather than naturally through innovation)...
Nobody's saying that, what we're saying is that The Earth is supposed to last forever.
Question: In what timescale do you imagine The Earth to be totally fucked at the present rate of consumption? 50 years? 100 years?
Can you imagine a single timescale where it isn't totally fucked? If not, you need to do something.
nb. Not "other people", you .
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's saying that, what we're saying is that The Earth is supposed to last forever.
Uh, wow. I have some bad news for you.....
Re:...they said 50 years ago... and 40 years ago.. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh no the earth is doomed in the next 10 years unless we take drastic measures to solve the problem (measures that will cause the destruction of the economy and the deaths of countless citizens if implemented through authoritarian government overreach rather than naturally through innovation)...
The role of government is to push the economy in a direction that benefits its citizens. Fossil fuels are inefficient, damages health and causes many extra deaths [usnews.com] every year, and it is just old and outdated. It is also more expense than solar [insideclimatenews.org]. And with storage technologies [tesla.com] there will be less of a need for continuous power generation.
And nuclear will take off when the fossil fuel industry [forbes.com] stops its propaganda [forbes.com] against it. It's a myth around here that environmentalists are stopping nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a myth around here that environmentalists are stopping nuclear.
Many of them are certainly not helping. The most prominent environmental groups remain staunchly anti-nuclear as ever.
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa... [greenpeace.org]
https://www.sierraclub.org/nuc... [sierraclub.org]
http://environmentalprogress.o... [environmen...ogress.org]
I could go on. There are some counter-examples [wikipedia.org], of course, but by calling this a "myth", you're strongly implying that most environmentalist are just fine with nuclear power, and that's most certainly NOT the case. At best, I think you could describe the environmentalists as being split on t
Re: (Score:2)
And nuclear will take off when the fossil fuel industry [forbes.com] stops its propaganda [forbes.com] against it. It's a myth around here that environmentalists are stopping nuclear.
BS! I volunteer with a local environmental land acquisition charity (they acquire and maintain land, easements, etc., in order to produce green buffers and wilderness areas) that I view as an extremely practical and "boots on the ground" organization.
The board and the rank and file membership as a whole are RABIDLY anti-nuclear. At one meeting, I suggested the organization release a letter supporting the local power company's effort to extend an existing nuclear plant's operating license. From the reaction
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they weren't saying we needed *drastic* action twenty years ago, unless you think any action is automatically "drastic".
A lot of people apparently do think this way. Remember when they went ballistic when Obama suggested that keeping your car tires properly inflated was something ordinary people could do to help reduce carbon emissions? That should have been uncontroversial, but people don't *want* there to be anything they could do. They'd rather ignore problems and hope for the best.
There's a p
Re: (Score:3)
It's quite easy to see the human contribution to atmospheric CO2. The Mona Loa CO2 levels have risen consistently, every year, since 1960. The only source that tracks that his human emissions. It's not like the level of volcanic eruptions has been rising steadily for 60 years.
You seem to think that not seeing a reduction in CO2 at Mona Loa in May is proof that it's all a bunch of hooey. But you wouldn't expect to see a reduction in CO2 even if all the CO2 emissions stopped completely. CO2 levels are li
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a coincidence CO2 levels in the atmosphere [ourworldindata.org] have risen so quickly?
That's the best excuse you've got?