|
|
#1
08-31-2007, 01:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
How much would we have to cut emissions?
x post in politics
Lets say, hypothetically MMGW is correct, furthermore our current rate of emissions will cause a significant increase in temperature by 2020, and we want to prevent this. Is there a linear relationship between C02 and temp increase so that a 10% reduction in emissions will result in a 10% lower temp increase? What is the lower bound of temperature increase for significant climate problems, what is the lower bound for catastrophic changes? 
|
|
#2
08-31-2007, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
[ QUOTE ]
x post in politics Lets say, hypothetically MMGW is correct, furthermore our current rate of emissions will cause a significant increase in temperature by 2020, and we want to prevent this. Is there a linear relationship between C02 and temp increase so that a 10% reduction in emissions will result in a 10% lower temp increase? What is the lower bound of temperature increase for significant climate problems, what is the lower bound for catastrophic changes? [/ QUOTE ] If we had these answers it wouldn't be a political issue at all. It's only political now because we don't actually know the answer.
|
|
#3
08-31-2007, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
[ QUOTE ]
If we had these answers it wouldn't be a political issue at all. It's only political now because we don't actually know the answer. [/ QUOTE ] This seems like the only answer. The best you'll get are educated guesses from scientists or folks pretending to be scientists. FWIW, I'd totally be interested in some educated opinions, though. I know vv little about this stuff.
|
|
#4
08-31-2007, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
[ QUOTE ]
If we had these answers it wouldn't be a political issue at all. It's only political now because we don't actually know the answer. [/ QUOTE ] We have a very good idea of the answer. It's been explicitly laid out in a number of publications, most notably the IPCC report. Basically, to avoid *possible* catastrophe we need to cut to pre-1990 levels in the next decade, and continue to reduce. And it's both doable and advantageous for both national security and the economy. All it takes is massive investment (much less than Iraq, though) and the will to do it.
|
|
#5
08-31-2007, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
[ QUOTE ]
And it's both doable and advantageous for both national security and the economy. All it takes is massive investment (much less than Iraq, though) and the will to do it. [/ QUOTE ] yeah, honestly I think we could have cheap solar in 5 years, but there's no money in that I guess. I mean we've spent a trillion on iraq. a trillion here, a trillion there, before long we'll have spent some real money on that war, you know.
|
|
#6
08-31-2007, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
Phil,
I'm not very up-to-date on the global positions on this issue. The last time I seriously read about it was shortly after the Stern Report came out. What do the major nations' attitudes seem to be?
|
|
#7
08-31-2007, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
Well, the main polluters are China, the US and Europe. China is going to be the world's biggest polluter (they're nearly there already) and nothing will happen on their front without serious pressure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions But Western countries could cut emissions by enough to make up for China's increases, at least for the next decade. It would require a project of the size of the Manhattan project. Basically, growing algae in the desert to supply all US transportation fuel: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html Such biodiesel would be cheaper than oil, and offer zero emissions. It would be fantastic for the economy and national security. There's no reason at all not to do it.
|
|
#8
08-31-2007, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
I don't think there would be a direct linear relationship.
As someone state earlier, I think our greatest goal should be to counteract China's ever increasing emissions. Personally what worries me is that even if we offset China, there are quite a few nations that are just a decade or two away from having their own industrial/commercial explosions (not literally) that we will have to offset in some way.
|
|
#9
08-31-2007, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there would be a direct linear relationship. As someone state earlier, I think our greatest goal should be to counteract China's ever increasing emissions. Personally what worries me is that even if we offset China, there are quite a few nations that are just a decade or two away from having their own industrial/commercial explosions (not literally) that we will have to offset in some way. [/ QUOTE ] Who is offsetting us? We're still #1 in emissions -- why can't WE fix that first?
|
|
#10
08-31-2007, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How much would we have to cut emissions?
[ QUOTE ]
Personally what worries me is that even if we offset China, there are quite a few nations that are just a decade or two away from having their own industrial/commercial explosions (not literally) that we will have to offset in some way. [/ QUOTE ] Hopefully the new tech is out by then? Seems like that would work out economically and environmentally.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
