National Geographic: How to cut down on emissions


mentalfloss
#1
Battle Plan for Climate Change: How to Cut Greenhouse Gases

Trust in technology: That seems to be the underlying message of a coming report from the world's top panel on climate change. (Related: "Can Coal Ever Be Clean?")

Scheduled for release on Sunday in Berlin, Germany, the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report will point to many possible ways—from burying greenhouse gases to going nuclear to encouraging biofuel production—to save humanity from the ravages of climate change.

"We are at a critical juncture," IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri said in a statement kicking off the final review of the report on Monday. The document is still in draft form and will be revised before its release this Sunday. The final report matters, he emphasized, because it will define the issues and outline options for policymakers at next year's international climate summit in Paris.

There, world leaders—if they have the political backbone—will face the climate challenges they left unresolved at the 2008 climate meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark.

An earlier IPCC report in 2013 found that more than half of the global warming observed since 1950 was caused by humans. The biggest culprit has been emissions from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal. (Related: "Clean Coal Test: Power Plants Prepare to Capture Carbon.") And the warming looks "virtually certain" to continue unless those emissions are cut.

"I think we will see that there are a wide number of paths we can take to get to the mountaintop we want to reach," says economist James Edmonds of the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland. (Edmonds participated in drafting the latest IPCC report, but he emphasized that his comments to National Geographic represented his personal views.) "We just have to pick what mountaintop we all want, in terms of a temperature goal for the climate. And we have to decide to climb there."

Some critics, such as political scientist Steven Cohen of the Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York City, think it's unlikely that the IPCC report will spur political action. It should be seen more as a guide "to point to ways to transition to renewable energy," he says. "Ingenuity is more likely to help us than a treaty."

A Hard Climb

A 1992 United Nations agreement broadly obligated the world to limit global temperature increases to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) over preindustrial levels. Some studies have noted significant dangers—chiefly, lower farm production—if the planet warms beyond that point.

"The most interesting and useful thing the new report could do would be in simply laying out all the paths we could take to not breach that limit," says MIT economist John Reilly. "Most people think it's very unlikely we are going to stay within that [3.6-degree] limit."

The IPCC Working Group 3 report, based on six years of economic and technology studies, will lay out innovations and reforms in power generation, industry, transportation, farming, and other fields that might help nations to reduce emissions. Yet many of the scenarios examined in the report also look at what the world might do if the 3.6-degree limit is passed and temperatures rise still higher.

"Based on the studies that are already out there, I think we can say the sooner emissions are reduced, the easier it becomes to reach those goals," Edmonds says.

Written by 235 scientists from 53 nations over four years, the report on climate change mitigation is the third in a series released in the past year. The IPCC has released such reports in groups every six to seven years since 1990.

IPCC reports synthesize scientific studies to present policy options to government leaders. The two earlier reports enumerated the near-certain evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for increasing temperatures worldwide over the last century, and detailed the impacts on people, wildlife, and the environment.

"The IPCC is not going to solve the political problem that is at the bottom of things," Reilly cautioned. "A lot of the studies [considered] in the report started from the premise that we already were doing something about carbon reduction. That didn't happen."

Big Surprise

One surprise that will likely appear in the final version of the report is that some technologies appear to have more potential than they did in 2007 to remove carbon from the air.

The final IPCC document is still being edited and reviewed, but recent news reports have suggested that it will tout power plants that burn agricultural waste, farmed trees, or algae as fuel, then capture the carbon dioxide emissions and store them underground. The technology is called "bioenergy with carbon capture and storage" (BECCS).

"Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation?" was the title of a recent Climatic Change journal report on BECCS co-authored by the chief author of the IPCC study, Ottmar Edenhofer of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Such methods are expensive and face skepticism, however. "The technology only works ... if you store the carbon and you put some kind of price on carbon to make it economically feasible," Edmonds says, adding that all carbon-cutting technologies should be available for policymakers to consider.

"The more bullets you have to shoot, the more likely you are to hit your target," he says.

Battle Plan for Climate Change: How to Cut Greenhouse Gases
 
petros
+1
#2
How big will your garden be this year MF?
 
mentalfloss
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

How big will your garden be this year MF?

Why?
 
taxslave
+1
#4
A report from a thourly discredited scam organization is hardly a good or usefull source of information.
 
petros
#5
So you can reduce your emissions and dependency on oil.

Or is everyone else at fault?
 
mentalfloss
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

A report from a thourly discredited scam organization is hardly a good or usefull source of information.

Care to provide evidence showing whatever it is you claim to be 'thourly' discredited?
 
pgs
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

So you can reduce your emissions and dependency on oil.

Or is everyone else at fault?

Over his head .
 
mentalfloss
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

So you can reduce your emissions and dependency on oil.

Or is everyone else at fault?

It's not really a matter of fault but consequence.

Factories and other big emitters are the ones that cause the most emissions and if carbon capturing is a feasible option, then they would be the first to make good use of it.
 
taxslave
+2
#9  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

It's not really a matter of fault but consequence.

Factories and other big emitters are the ones that cause the most emissions and if carbon capturing is a feasible option, then they would be the first to make good use of it.

Now you are learning. Taxing oil producers is not the snswer. Neither is the carbon credit scam. There could be a market for captured carbon and when economical processesare developed forward thinking companies will capatializeon it. The rest will go the way of the buggy whip.
 
mentalfloss
#10
Trudeau calls for greenhouse gas limits on oil sands

In an interview Wednesday, Mr. Trudeau asserted his support for the controversial oil sands industry that has drawn fire from critics over its fast-rising carbon emissions and its local ecological impacts. But he said Ottawa needs to prod the industry into making the environmental improvements that he said are necessary to ensure it gains crucial access to new markets.

While Prime Minister Stephen Harper has aggressively supported oil-sands growth, Mr. Trudeau said the government has failed the industry by giving its critics ample ammunition to attack its environmental performance. He argued U.S. resistance to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, and opposition to projects that would export Alberta crude from B.C. ports, should be laid at the doorstep of the Conservative government.

“If we had a clear set of environmental frameworks and regulations and oversight, we would have reassured both Canadians and our trading partners that we were not forgetting about the environment in our drive to extract economic benefit from our resources,” the Liberal Leader said.

“The fact is that the oil sands have somehow become a poster child for climate change. That is a failing of both government and industry for allowing that to happen because they weren’t doing enough to reassure people that the environment is a priority.”

A Liberal government would adopt a national climate policy – in collaboration with the provinces – that would target both consumers and industry, including regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands, he said.

Mr. Trudeau’s comments came the day after former prime minister Brian Mulroney urged Ottawa to show greater leadership in the resource sector, in part by doing more to win support from aboriginal Canadians and environmentalists.

Trudeau calls for greenhouse gas limits on oil sands - The Globe and Mail
 
petros
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

It's not really a matter of fault but consequence.

Factories and other big emitters are the ones that cause the most emissions and if carbon capturing is a feasible option, then they would be the first to make good use of it.

Factories? What factories. They all grow tulips these days. Once captured then what?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Factories? What factories. They all grow tulips these days. Once captured then what?

Counselling? Community service?
 
Locutus
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

A Liberal government would adopt a national climate policy – in collaboration with the provinces – that would target both consumers and industry, including regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands, he said.

The little shiny one is learning from Stewardship Ontario and their windfalls of 'targeted consumers and industry'.


Hey, maybe one of you layabouts could dig up how much money in ECO Fees have been grabbed in Ontario so far. Just for kicks ya know.
 
petros
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Trudeau calls for greenhouse gas limits on oil sands

In an interview Wednesday, Mr. Trudeau asserted his support for the controversial oil sands industry that has drawn fire from critics over its fast-rising carbon emissions and its local ecological impacts. But he said Ottawa needs to prod the industry into making the environmental improvements that he said are necessary to ensure it gains crucial access to new markets.
G
While Prime Minister Stephen Harper has aggressively supported oil-sands growth, Mr. Trudeau said the government has failed the industry by giving its critics ample ammunition to attack its environmental performance. He argued U.S. resistance to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, and opposition to projects that would export Alberta crude from B.C. ports, should be laid at the doorstep of the Conservative government.

“If we had a clear set of environmental frameworks and regulations and oversight, we would have reassured both Canadians and our trading partners that we were not forgetting about the environment in our drive to extract economic benefit from our resources,” the Liberal Leader said.

“The fact is that the oil sands have somehow become a poster child for climate change. That is a failing of both government and industry for allowing that to happen because they weren’t doing enough to reassure people that the environment is a priority.




A Liberal government would adopt a national climate policy – in collaboration with the provinces – that would target both consumers and industry, including regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands, he said.

Mr. Trudeau’s comments came the day after former prime minister Brian Mulroney urged Ottawa to show greater leadership in the resource sector, in part by doing more to win support from aboriginal Canadians and environmentalists.

Trudeau calls for greenhouse gas limits on oil sands - The Globe and Mail

It doesn't put out any extra so cutting and capping happens without lifting a finger. Be careful of you post.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Factories? What factories. They all grow tulips these days. Once captured then what?

Put carbon in orange jump suits and send it out to pick up litter.
Last edited by petros; Apr 10th, 2014 at 09:37 AM..
 
Blackleaf
#15
It's a waste of time cringy lefty PC green countries like Canada banging on about "cutting emissions" when more sensible countries like China and Germany are opening several new coal-fired power stations each week which will be in operation decades from now.

But, of course, the more sensible and mature amongst us recognise that "climate change" does not exist and that these reports are nothing but scaremongering drivel which deserve to be shredded and binned.

The sooner more people ignore such mindless, scaremongering drivel the more the Great Global Warming Scammers will realise that nobody is listening to them.
 
mentalfloss
#16
Coal plants are also under scrutiny here.
 
petros
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Coal plants are also under scrutiny here.

4 coal plants equal the entire oil sands operation in CO2 output but that's okay the NG industry will replace the coal with gas and sell the coal for steel making where it's needed.
 
Blackleaf
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Coal plants are also under scrutiny here.


Doesn't surprise me. Canada, like Britain, is one of those green-obsessed countries, whose dangerous obsession with windmills will leave you all living by candlelight in a few years from now, whilst the lights will still be on in Germany and China thanks to their coal-fired power stations.

That's where all this green nonsense is leading us.
 
EagleSmack
+2
#19
MF no longer believes that individual carbon foot prints need be factored in now. The rich, white, liberal elite got tired of their abuses of energy being held up to scrutiny and MF is one of their drones.
 
petros
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

MF no longer believes that individual carbon foot prints need be factored in now. The rich, white, liberal elite got tired of their abuses of energy being held up to scrutiny and MF is one of their drones.

No fresh carrots for him.
 
captain morgan
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

No fresh carrots for him.


Eating vegetables and/or any form of plant life is absolutely verboten as those little harmless life forms actually sequester the bad, bad CO2 that is destroying Mother Gaia.

Digestion of said food stuffs functionally releases the trapped CO2, which we all know may as well be the equivalent of battery acid to the environment
 
mentalfloss
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

MF no longer believes that individual carbon foot prints need be factored in now. The rich, white, liberal elite got tired of their abuses of energy being held up to scrutiny and MF is one of their drones.

Eaglesmack 3:16

Anyway, if you guys are just going to ad hominem circle jerk, that's fine.

But you would be better off trying to argue legitimate points.
 
EagleSmack
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Eaglesmack 3:16

Anyway, if you guys are just going to ad hominem circle jerk, that's fine.

But you would be better off trying to argue legitimate points.

For what? You're a zealot.

Why should I argue with a wall when I can do this?

 
petros
#24
 
mentalfloss
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

For what? You're a zealot.

Why should I argue with a wall when I can do this?

How am I a zealot ?
 
Spade
#26
A true zealot.
The true story of Nikola Tesla - YouTube
 
taxslave
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Doesn't surprise me. Canada, like Britain, is one of those green-obsessed countries, whose dangerous obsession with windmills will leave you all living by candlelight in a few years from now, whilst the lights will still be on in Germany and China thanks to their coal-fired power stations.

That's where all this green nonsense is leading us.

We use water. Clean. Free. Totally renuable.
 
Cliffy
#28
Desmond Tutu calls for anti-apartheid style boycott of fossil fuel industry

Nobel peace prize winner calls for organizations to cut ties with industry and for investors to dump fossil fuel stocks



Desmond Tutu calls for anti-apartheid style boycott of fossil fuel industry | Environment | The Guardian
 
Blackleaf
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

We use water. Clean. Free. Totally renuable.


So is wind. And if you think water power is enough to power Canada and keep its lights on then you, like the other enviroMentals, will get a nasty shock by the time this decade is out.

Just like Britain, which is peppering its beautiful countryside with expensive, ugly and inefficient windmills, even when the locals don't want them in their area Canada will, by 2020, come to rue its decision to rely on "green" energy to power itself and will suddenly find itself plunged into blackness and its inhabitants having to live by candlelight because of its failure to invest in the building of coal-firedand nuclear-powered power stations.

The environmentalists have been warned time and again about this, but they will never take heed, and we will suffer as a result.

The Germans and Chinese, meanwhile, who open new coal-fired power stations every week, will be laughing.
 
taxslave
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

So is wind. And if you think water power is enough to power Canada and keep its lights on then you, like the other enviroMentals, will get a nasty shock by the time this decade is out.

Just like Britain, which is peppering its beautiful countryside with expensive, ugly and inefficient windmills, even when the locals don't want them in their area Canada will, by 2020, come to rue its decision to rely on "green" energy to power itself and will suddenly find itself plunged into blackness and its inhabitants having to live by candlelight because of its failure to invest in the building of coal-firedand nuclear-powered power stations.

The environmentalists have been warned time and again about this, but they will never take heed, and we will suffer as a result.

The Germans and Chinese, meanwhile, who open new coal-fired power stations every week, will be laughing.

Not all of Canada is on water power. Trouble with most people that live in Europe is they have no concept of size. The island I live on is as large as England. Even there we have several hydro dams and a few wind farms. Nuclear is a non starter here.
 

Similar Threads

8
G8 emissions target 2050
by Karlin | Jul 2nd, 2007
13
Ethanol = Emissions
by Karlin | Apr 3rd, 2007
12
Cow 'emissions': The New Warming Threat?
by I think not | Dec 15th, 2006