ACS - If, Starting Today, No More Power Plants, Cars Etc. Were Built We Might Avoid Worst Of Climate

[hatrack]

Might

If no new CO2-emitting power plants, cars, and other energy and transportation infrastructure were built starting today, Earth might narrowly avoid the worst effects of anticipated global climate change, according to a study.

But that scenario is improbable, say Steven J. Davis of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and colleagues, who prepared the study, because the world is in no position to make the immediate transition to carbon-neutral energy technologies it would require.

Davis and coworkers compiled data on power plant emissions, motor vehicle emissions, and emissions produced directly from industry, households, businesses, and transportation. They then used a climate model to project the effect of future CO2 on Earth’s climate (Science 2010, 329, 1330).

What the team found surprised them: Even if no new CO2-emitting sources were built, the world’s existing energy infrastructure would emit 500 gigatons of CO2 until current sources go out of service over the next 50 years. That amount would stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels below 430 ppm and level off the average global temperature at 1.3 °C above the preindustrial mean. The researchers had expected those figures to be above the threshold values of 450 ppm and 2 °C that climate scientists believe will trigger major climate disruption.

But there’s still a catch, Davis says. Although existing infrastructure doesn’t appear to be a threat to climate, much of future energy demand will be met by traditional CO2-emitting sources. “The devices whose emissions will cause the worst impacts have yet to be built,” he adds. It will require “truly extraordinary development” of new infrastructure and take decades to distance ourselves from CO2-emitting technologies.

EDIT

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i37/8837notw7.html

[FirstLight]

1. yep, we should have started this shift 50 years ago

but instead they called us hippies (and worse) and ignored us.

instead, we are just screwn.

I guess it's time to invest in a paddle... but shit creek is already flooding ain't it?

[closeupready]

2. This is nice, but we are not going to avoid the worst of climate change.

Too many powerful people from all over the world make their fortunes on the systematic consumption of fossil fuels, so we won't change that practice until forced (people start dying on a massive scale), and by then, it will be too late.

[izquierdista]

3. Humans have an intelligence test coming up

Can they learn to tame the greediest in their hive and work together? If they can, maybe they can survive. If they can't, then those who want to acquire more, and consume more, and have more children are going to sink the rest.

If they really wanted to do something, to solve the problem of food scarcity and greenhouse gases, they would start now to sequester carbon in places like the Sahara desert and the Australian outback and try to re-green them. But first it takes cooperation and putting limits on how much wealth one person can amass to themselves.

[kestrel91316]

4. We are screwed. I am glad I didn't have children, and feel great fear for

my niece and nephew's futures.

Sigh. Glad I'll be dead by mid-century.

And yes, I'm still happily car-free.

[stuntcat]

27. +1

you said it.

sorry for my cousins' babies/glad my years are half up/happy to not have a car

[GliderGuider]

5. It's going to be so interesting to live though this change

The opportunity to learn about ourselves, about who we are as a society and as individuals, will be enormous. People always learn the most when they are under stress, and I think this is going to qualify. It may sound macabre to some, but I'm really looking forward to the upcoming transitions.

[Newest Reality]

6. Agreed!

While there is going to be large amounts of disorientation, disinclination and dislocation, there is a good chance here. That is, if we can pause to see it and find the potential.

Many of us are mind-locked into a social scheme of consensus. The greatest stress and chaos may come from our own, collective clinging to what has been even though many can see just how out of balance and self-destructive that way proves itself to be.

We are adaptable when needs be. We can breakthrough the self-imposed bondage, (self-imposed in the sense that we allow it and participate) and find the courage to explore what our rightful worries and concerns are leading us, inexorably, towards. That kind of approach to the predicament will not happen alone, but with an expanded sense of what self is, if it is to be successful amidst the noise and fury of a culture and World-shaking transition. We can only surmise, at this stage, whether it will result in devastation or a new flowering of humanity. We might even look back and be able to say, "Never again!"

Instead of hope and wishes, wants and desires, we can translate our old, consumer and media-driven proclivities into an ever-focusing vision of what we are capable of without our old shackles and unsustainable illusions. Why substitute wishful thinking for small steps and knowing actions?

That is what the harmonious potential for survival offers and it grows past fear, one mind at a time. Why worry about who and how many when you have not yet mined your own capacity and capability even if you start with some creative imagination or other ways to find a sense of freedom that is about nothing to be free from.

You can only start now.

[NNadir]

7. Why do you assume you'll live through it?

Are you especially immune?

[GliderGuider]

8. Well, a) I'm inherently optimistic and b) I'm Canadian...

Less flippantly, I'm living right now and the changes are already underway, so I'm already living through them. More importantly, I prefer to assume that I'll live rather than assume I'll die. The latter is not an assumption but a certainty, so there's really not much point wasting precious time planning for it. It will happen when it happens. In the meantime, I prefer to live in the moment and assume that the future, when it arrives, will have some form of "me" in it. I find life is a lot more rewarding (not to mention a lot less stressful) if I approach it this way.

[kristopher]

9. I think you've got it.

Omedetou.

[NNadir]

13. OK. I'll buy that. I didn't actually realize that Canadians are...

...immortal, but if they are, well then, who am I to argue?

The "Canadians are immortal" argument is less toxic in many ways that the very harmful "we can have our cars with a few solar cells" argument, since the latter has no real effect and the second causes real harm via its generation of delusion and complacency.

I personally am not interested in living forever.

To me mortality is its own compensation, because one is compelled by a sense of mortality to achieve something.

When I was young and thought myself immortal, even though I did, in fact, have several close brushes with death, I was far less interested in life than I am now that I feel my mortality every waking moment.

But when I was very young, a child, everything was new and having watched my own sons when first they saw the world, I am satisfied that dying in order that other beings may know those things makes for a just universe.

[GliderGuider]

14. Physical mortality is just fine with me.

I have no desire to have my body cluttering up the landscape in perpetuity.

The desire for physical immortality is just another manifestation of the ego's fear of annihilation. The immortality I search for begins with the annihilation of the ego's need to cling to what it perceives.

And that perception includes cars and solar cells and nuclear reactors and wind turbines and polar bears and kittycats and food and shelter and pristine forests and noxious garbage dumps and good and evil and you and me and justice and fairness etc. etc. If you get my drift.

[NNadir]

15. Sounds like some kind of religion I may have heard of.

I can't say I think much about that stuff too much, although I do have the sense now of what Galois must have thought on the night before he died at the age of 21 - not that I will ever be as important as Galois - when he continuously scribbled in the margins of his last proofs, "there isn't time enough."

Anyone who expects annihilation, whether one is a Galois equivalent or not, will surely be proved correct.

[XemaSab]

10. The part that is baffling to me

is that the companies that are doing the most damage are also the companies that have the capacity to lead the way, have the opportunity to make the most money from the change, and avoid most of the potential damage to their own company when things get tough.

For example, if Ford put out a plug-in car, people would buy it, Ford would make money, and Ford would not run the risk of failing as a company when CAFE standards jump to 70 mpg.

Or if Exxon bought out several big solar panel manufacturers, they could pump R&D money into making the panels cheaper and more efficient, and make money on both ends of the coming climate crisis.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. That requires planning ahead, though.

The sorts of companies that could tackle the problem aren't owned by individuals (some of whom might make the right decision) or governments (who will make the right decision after trying all other options), but shareholders - all of whom want a slice of pie, and most of whom have shareholders of their own (thus excusing them from any non-pie options).

The purpose of the company, whatever business it looks like it's in, becomes shovelling pie out of the door as fast as possible.

Expecting this system to take a lead on long-term innovation is as hopeful as panning for gold in your own toilet.

[kristopher]

12. Jared Diamond disagrees...

Jared Diamond NYTimes “Will Big Business Save the Earth?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html

Will Big Business Save the Earth?
By JARED DIAMOND
Published: December 5, 2009
Los Angeles
THERE is a widespread view, particularly among environmentalists and liberals, that big businesses are environmentally destructive, greedy, evil and driven by short-term profits. I know — because I used to share that view.

But today I have more nuanced feelings. Over the years I’ve joined the boards of two environmental groups, the World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International, serving alongside many business executives.

As part of my board work, I have been asked to assess the environments in oil fields, and have had frank discussions with oil company employees at all levels. I’ve also worked with executives of mining, retail, logging and financial services companies. I’ve discovered that while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect, others are among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability.

The embrace of environmental concerns by chief executives has accelerated recently for several reasons. Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run. And a clean image — one attained by, say, avoiding oil spills and other environmental disasters — reduces criticism from employees, consumers and government.

What’s my evidence for this? Here are a few examples involving three corporations — Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Chevron — that many critics of business love to hate, in my opinion, unjustly...

[Dead_Parrot]

16. The Wallmart example is perfect, thank you

Walmart stop the truck drivers from leaving the engine on when they take a shit in Boca. Result? They save - and I'm working backwards from Jared's non-figures here - about 10Kt CO₂/yr. And the new planned super trucks will save them another 80Kt CO₂/yr, on paper.

Hooray.

Except Wally's total CO₂/yr passed 20,000Kt a couple of years ago: The figures aren't out for 09/10 yet but by past performance it's probably around the 24,000Kt CO₂/yr mark by now: They've just overtaken Jordan as a source of carbon and have thier sights set on Croatia. Saving 0.3% of that isn't saving jack shit, however you slice it.

On the other hand, If they simply switched to US-made goods, they'd half their emissions overnight, have goods that lasted longer than the bag they came in, and get a reputation as a decent company rather than the world's largest cess-pit - but that would mean taking less pie...

[kristopher]

17. Really? Where is your analysis to back that up?

WalMart delivers necessary goods and services to several hundred million people, of course they have a carbon footprint. When you can provide a life cycle analysis that supports your vacuous claims then you have something of substance to offer, As of now, all you have is a lame diatribe that is a self serving bunch of unsubstantiated hogwash.

Between you and Jared Diamond, I'll give weight to Diamond's opinions every time.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. Who said it was a life cycle analysis?

There's no manufacturing in there, just wally's distribution & sales. The carbon footprint is their own figures - can you find them all by yourself or would you like me to help?

And dude, you'd back up Pol Pot if he said the free market would save the planet.

[kristopher]

19. So Jared Diamond is PolPot?

You made an assertion that requires an LCA to determine. You are full of it...

Again.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. Logic isn't really your forté, is it?

Working out what percentage of Wally's carbon emissions the "world saving" 10Kt-worth truck APUs represents just requires the ability to divide 10 into 20000. Of course, a full LCA might change the story if US made goods are of lower quality and Us energy is more polluting. Do you think that is the case?

[XemaSab]

21. I can't stand Jared Diamond

n/t

[Nihil]

22. Like most things, Diamond is OK in moderation ...

As for most professional writers, some of the output is crap but other
parts are excellent.

Apply your filters to keep the latter without getting bogged down by the former.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

23. On the question of how humans make evolutionary cultural choices...

On the question of how humans make evolutionary cultural choices Diamond is probably one of the finest minds we have. His writings on the topic are second only to Marvin Harris IMO.

His "green" credentials are beyond reproach.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/diamond.html

[Nihil]

24. Agreed

> On the question of how humans make evolutionary cultural choices Diamond
> is probably one of the finest minds we have.
> His "green" credentials are beyond reproach.

My comment was not suggesting otherwise, simply that he has (at times)
fallen into the same trap as many professional writers, namely that he
sometimes puts out sub-standard work either due to budget/time constraints
or because he likes to keep his name visible.

:shrug:

[caraher]

25. Don't forget, CEOs have no motive to think long-term

And by long-term I mean 5 years, not 50. CEOs come and go, and typically rise to the top in the last few years of their career. Shareholders want money now, not in 5 or 50 years; even if the leadership has a sound long-term plan they may not hold their jobs long enough to see it through. Which is a major reason one cannot rely entirely on the "free market" *even when there is a long-term financial benefit to doing the right thing*!

[kristopher]

26. I don't think Diamond is advocating for "relying entirely on the "free market""

What he is speaking to are the realistic choices in front of us. The writing is on the wall regarding future energy supplies and the constraints that will result from the necessity to reduce carbon emissions. The slick PR campaign may have a gullible public fooled, but even a majority of the anticlimate policy people are well aware of the reality of climate change and what that means to the future of our energy landscape. They may deny it to stall the transition as long as possible, but they know it is coming. Add in the rest who are focused on the rising level of petroleum consumption that would be associated with modernizing 3-4 billion more people and the future is clear to everyone. It isn't a matter of if we are going to change, just when and to what - both political and money/power related questions.

The policies enacted will be the determining factor in the pace of change and the sources we look to. The most common is the carbon tax, but there are a wide array of other policy avenues that open vast opportunities for those who innovate in the areas where we are headed. Making money now *is* compatible with long term planning in many cases; and, as those policy initiatives clarify themselves entering the energy market can only become easier as commiditization of the manufacturing for components of a new energy infrastructure matures.

So the answer is, as you say, to not rely "entirely" on the "free market; but rather, to establish the optimum policies for harnessing competitive forces in order to most efficiently effect the transition away from carbon to an abundant and sustainable energy supply.