Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink

[CHIMO]

Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.

The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius – which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change" – is likely to be just "a nice Utopia", according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions.

Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009, according to estimates from the IEA regarded as the gold standard for emissions data.

"I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions," Birol told the Guardian. "It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower

From other reports the seas will rise 61 m if the ice on Antarctica is gone. Well who wants that to happen? And who doesn't want that to happen? Is there some agreement between both of those groups to let it happen? Maybe time has to be speeded up to get some action?

[Lorien]

1. This issue-which has very serious implications for every living thing on earth-

isn't even on our party's radar. It's not even on most DUers "top ten issues" list. Many believe that jobs, the wars, same sex marriage, etc. trump climate change in importance; but they seem to lack understanding of just what is at stake here. It's not their grandchildren who will suffer; it's most of us who are alive TODAY who will feel it. Crop failures, more storms, starvation, wars, bio-diversity loss that endangers entire ecologies (which we can't survive without). This is the most dire emergency that our species has ever faced, and yet we IGNORE it!

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I agree entirely with you.

We don't have a decade left before truly catastrophic changes beset us. Maybe 7 years.

[Yo_Mama]

4. There is little our country can do about it

Most of the increase in emissions is coming from the Asia-Pacific region.

[Kablooie]

10. Actually if we tried there's probably a lot we could do but we won't try.

[Lorien]

14. Nonsense. We consume 24% of the world's oil

and there are plenty of viable green alternatives out there. There have been for decades, but the fossil fuel lobby owns our government.

[GliderGuider]

3. The only mechanism that reduces CO2 output is global economic meltdown.

The year before last there was a decline because of the recession. Now the global economy is recovering, and we're back to burning more carbon.

So long as the world's economy stays healthy, the world itself is screwed. It's a very unhappy situation.

[Gregorian]

5. Economies rely on resources.

It's odd that talking like you did in your post is considered heresy. I have known this concept, and found myself feeling guilty when failing economies give me hope. Pretty odd. And it's a dilemma.

The carbon footprint of the human race is going to continue skyrocketing. And the planet is going to suffer in many ways. I have always envisioned a smoldering wreckage with very little diversity for some pathetic generation to inherit.

By the way, there's a guy with a great radio show. An expatriot who now lives in France. He even posts on DU now. Max Keiser. He has a very good handle on this stuff. His show is called The Truth About Markets.

By the way, I don't know about you, but I find this stuff to be highly distressing. I'm finally realizing that I must find ways to bring the stress level down, or I suffer.

[GliderGuider]

6. That's why I'm pretty convinced this is all going to end poorly.

Nobody wants their economy to collapse, but the only way we have to keep the machine running is to burn fossil fuels...

We can have a global economy or the planet. We can't have both. We have already made our choice as to which we prefer.

[Gregorian]

9. And shooting elk and pulling fish out of streams is a thing of the past.

That is what completes the picture for me. Resources are not available, let alone plentiful enough for all of us.

However, we still don't know what is going to happen. I don't subscribe to the don't worry be happy philosophy. But... What would Buddha do? The Dalai Lama?

[GliderGuider]

11. A "Worry, be unhappy" philosophy doesn't help much, though.

"Ending suffering" is not about burying your head in the sand. It's about being flexible, courageous and centered enough to work on the things you can change and accept the things you can't. It helps to realize that tomorrow will always be different from today, in ways you have no way of predicting - just like every tomorrow has been since the dawn of time. And that there is abundant happiness to be found wherever you are if you simply relax and open your heart and mind to it.

That's what the Buddha would do.

[GliderGuider]

7. And for bringing down the stress levels...

Some form of Buddhism and vipassana meditation are great places to start. Seriously. Coming to terms with impermanence is what it's all about.

[Gregorian]

8. Man you really do get it.

Impermanence. That's the thing I've been fighting. I'm finally getting this under control. Decades of suffering. Now I see it as self preservation. And there is nothing but right now. Tomorrow doesn't exist yet.

I am just finishing up a book titled Beyond Success and Failure. I highly recommend it. Self-reliance. I'm selling my ranch and moving on. And I am finding that I can do this without stressing. I've got trucks, tractors, machine tools, and I'm actually excited instead of freaked out like I was the last few times I moved. And in this real estate climate I should be afraid.

[wtmusic]

12. "'People may not like nuclear, but it is one of the major technologies

for generating electricity without carbon dioxide,' said Birol. The gap left by scaling back the world's nuclear ambitions is unlikely to be filled entirely by renewable energy, meaning an increased reliance on fossil fuels."

Here's the keys to the car, kids. There's the cliff.

[kristopher]

13. He is wrong and so are you.

As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.


Broken apart for ease of reading:

You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.