Can we reduce Carbon emissions?

[Skull Pilot]

Now Obama in his ill advised Waman cap and tax scheme wants a better than 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.

That would mean reducing carbon emissions in to a level not seen in 1910. But since we are a more populous country now, it would mean a per-capita reduction of emissions to a level not seen since 1875.

Does anyone believe this is possible?

In 1875, there were no cars, no planes, no electricity and most people's carbon emissions came from heating their homes with wood or possibly coal.

So is it realistic to mandate an impossible standard?

Face it folks this is not a plan for environmental policy it is nothing but yet another government scheme to separate us from our money and to exert more control over our lives.

 

[FactFinder]

Now Obama in his ill advised Waman cap and tax scheme wants a better than 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.

That would mean reducing carbon emissions in to a level not seen in 1910. But since we are a more populous country now, it would mean a per-capita reduction of emissions to a level not seen since 1875.

Does anyone believe this is possible?

In 1875, there were no cars, no planes, no electricity and most people's carbon emissions came from heating their homes with wood or possibly coal.

So is it realistic to mandate an impossible standard?

Face it folks this is not a plan for environmental policy it is nothing but yet another government scheme to separate us from our money and to exert more control over our lives.

We still have not answered the question as to whether we need to.

 

[Mr. H.]

Waxman-Markey is only half the picture. Bamster intends to tax domestic hydrocarbon production by tens of billions of dollars, then plow the money into "green" tech and jobs. U.S. production will plummet, industry jobs will be lost, and imports will go up.

 

[waltky]

China leads the way in carbon emissions...

Carbon emissions hit record high
Tue, Jun 11, 2013 - China led a rise in global carbon dioxide emissions to a record high last year, more than offsetting falls in the US and Europe, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said yesterday.

Worldwide carbon emissions rose by 1.4 percent to 31.6 billion tonnes, according to estimates from the Paris-based IEA. China is the biggest emitter and made the largest contribution to the global rise, spewing out an additional 300 million tonnes. However, the gain was one of the lowest China has seen in a decade, reflecting its efforts to adopt renewable sources and improve energy efficiency. In the US, a switch from coal to gas in power generation helped reduce emissions by 200 million tonnes, bringing them back to the level of the mid-1990s.

Even though the use of coal increased in some European countries last year due to low prices, emissions in Europe declined by 50 million tonnes because of the economic slowdown, growth in renewable energy and emissions caps on industrial and power companies, the IEA said. Japan’s carbon emissions increased by 70 million tonnes, as efforts to improve energy efficiency failed to offset increasing use of fossil fuels after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster in 2011. Scientists say global average temperature rise needs to be limited to below 2oC this century to prevent devastating climate effects, like crop failure and melting glaciers. That would only be possible if emission levels are kept to about 44 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent by 2020.

The cooling towers and chimneys from a coal-burning power station can be seen behind a man standing next to his car in a newly constructed residential area in Beijing,

However, the IEA said the data shows the world is on a path to an average temperature rise of between 3.6oC and 5.3oC. “Global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 are projected to be nearly 4 billion tonnes higher than a level consistent with attaining the 2oC target, highlighting the scale of the challenge still to be tackled just in this decade,” the agency said. It urged governments to quickly adopt four policies that would ensure climate goals could be reached without harming economic growth. They are: improving energy efficiency in buildings, industry and transport; limiting the construction and use of inefficient power plants; halving methane emissions; and partially phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.

These would reduce global energy-related emissions by 8 percent or 3.1 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent in 2020, the agency said. “Delaying stronger climate action to 2020 would come at a cost: US$1.5 trillion in low-carbon investments are avoided before 2020, but US$5 trillion in additional investments would be required thereafter to get back on track,” the IEA said. International negotiators are meeting in Bonn, Germany, until Friday for UN talks aimed at getting a new global climate treaty, which would cut emissions, signed by 2015. However, the talks got off to a slow start last week due to attempts by three nations to amend one of the meeting’s many agendas to discuss how future decisions should be made.

Carbon emissions hit record high - Taipei Times

See also:

IEA warns carbon emission rising beyond desirable levels
Monday 10th June, 2013 - The world is not on track to limit the global temperature increase to a desirable level of 2 degrees Celsius, the International Energy Agency (IEA) Monday said urging governments to swiftly enact energy policies to keep alive climate goals without harming economic growth.

"Climate change has quite frankly slipped to the back burner of policy priorities. But the problem is not going away quite the opposite," IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said at the launch here of a Special Report Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map, which highlights the need for intensive action before 2020. The latest World Energy Outlook report highlights global temperatures are on track to rise by more than double the two-degree Celsius (3.6-degree Fahrenheit) warming goal set by the UN unless urgent measures are taken, the International Energy Agency. A key culprit is the energy sector, which accounts for around two-thirds of global greenhouse-gas emissions. "This report shows that the path we are currently on is more likely to result in a temperature increase of between 3.6 C and 5.3 C but also finds that much more can be done to tackle energy-sector emissions without jeopardising economic growth, an important concern for many governments," der Hoeven said.

New estimates for global energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2012 reveal a 1.4% increase, reaching a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes (Gt), but also mask significant regional differences. The IEA said the energy sector accounts for about two-thirds of global emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which scientists say are fueling climate change. In the United States, a switch from coal to gas in power generation helped reduce emissions by 200 million tonnes (Mt), or 3.8 percent, bringing them back to the level of the mid1990s. China experienced the largest growth in carbon emissions (300 Mt), or 3.8 percent rise from 2011but the increase was one of the lowest seen in a decade, driven by the deployment of renewables and improvements in energy intensity. Despite increased coal use in some countries, emissions in Europe declined by 50 Mt. Emissions in Japan increased by 70 Mt.

The new report of the Paris based IEA presents the results of a 4-for-2 degrees Celsius Scenario, in which four energy policies are selected that can deliver significant emissions reductions by 2020. It relies only on existing technologies and have already been adopted successfully in several countries. "We identify a set of proven measures that could stop the growth in global energy-related emissions by the end of this decade at no net economic cost," said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, the report's lead author. "Rapid and widespread adoption could act as a bridge to further action, buying precious time while international climate negotiations continue."

The four steps mooted by IEA for keeping carbon emission under check is targeted energy efficiency measures in buildings, industry and transport, which would account for nearly half the emissions reduction in 2020, with the additional investment required being more than offset by reduced spending on fuel bills. Limiting the construction and use of the least-efficient coal-fired power plants delivers more than 20% of the emissions reduction and helps curb local air pollution. The share of power generation from renewables increases (from around 20% today to 27% in 2020), as does that from natural gas.

More http://www.theafricanews.net/index.php/sid/215102626/scat/c1ab2109a5bf37ec

 

[Mr. H.]

China's the best thing to happen to the USEPA.

 

[Saigon]

I think 80% is unlikely, but there is no question at all that the US could cut emissions by 20% - 30% and actively improve economic performance as it goes.

We see this happening quite naturally and through private companies around the world, so there is no reason for the US to continue to be left behind because of politics.

If every American home, office and shop had adequate insulation, the savings would be absolutely enormous, and the people saving would be normal, working families.

If every American home, office and shop were equipped with solar water heating, photo-voltaic panels, heat exchange pumps or ground-heating systems where appropriate, the savings would be staggering.

 

[Saigon]

We still have not answered the question as to whether we need to.

Well, did we need to stop using the steam engine?

Technologies move forwards; and opposing newer, cleaner, more efficient and cheaper forms on energy because you do not politcally approve of what scientists are telling you doesn't make much sense.

 

[Mr. H.]

Been there, done that...

U.S. CO2 emissions fall to lowest first-quarter level in 20 years: EIA | Reuters

 

[skookerasbil]

A moot thread.......zero chance of any significant carbon legislation any time soon. They'll pass some BS token gesture to the k00ks later this year or early next.....but Cap and Trade is dead.

 

[martybegan]

We still have not answered the question as to whether we need to.

Well, did we need to stop using the steam engine?

Technologies move forwards; and opposing newer, cleaner, more efficient and cheaper forms on energy because you do not politcally approve of what scientists are telling you doesn't make much sense.

We got rid of the steam engine (for most applications, not all) because its replacements were either better, cheaper, easier to maintain or smaller.

What we have now is going backwards, away from the efficiency of centralization of energy production, away from higher energy densities, and away from maintaining our standard of living, all to the altar of AGW.

And its not the scientists I worry about, its the statist politicians who use AGW as an excuse to increase government powers at the expense of my liberties.

 

[skookerasbil]

We still have not answered the question as to whether we need to.

Well, did we need to stop using the steam engine?

Technologies move forwards; and opposing newer, cleaner, more efficient and cheaper forms on energy because you do not politcally approve of what scientists are telling you doesn't make much sense.

We got rid of the steam engine (for most applications, not all) because its replacements were either better, cheaper, easier to maintain or smaller.

What we have now is going backwards, away from the efficiency of centralization of energy production, away from higher energy densities, and away from maintaining our standard of living, all to the altar of AGW.

And its not the scientists I worry about, its the statist politicians who use AGW as an excuse to increase government powers at the expense of my liberties.

Not to worry man......cheap energy still prevails. Sheeeeeet.......even Europe is going big coal and natural gas right now, especially Germany. Their economies cant compete without fossil fuel energy. And the House is going to remain red until at least 2020 ( thanks to GOP governors redistricting efforts since 2010).....although Obama has been ramping up the fucking EPA crap and shitting on business. But no significant legislation is forthcoming.......DEMS dont want to be seen putting huge amounts of people out of work in the coal states heading for elections, nor do they want to be nailed with the brand of voters seeing gigantic increses in their electric bills. Thats a smart political move only to the environmental k00ks.

 

[flacaltenn]

Been there, done that...

U.S. CO2 emissions fall to lowest first-quarter level in 20 years: EIA | Reuters

Knew I could count on you Mr.H....

For those who don't want the news from Reuters -- this was done largely by market forces and largely WITHOUT govt intervention, payments to natives on Polynesian islands, an email scandal exposing a deceptive fantasy theory, OR Al Gore's help....

 

[flacaltenn]

HOWEVER ------ There is a way we could easily cut about 20% of the CO2 emissions charged against man.

A large portion of "our share" is farming and MOST of that is cow and pig farts. I've always considered it unfair to charge me for bovine emissions since we have NO IDEA if they fart more or less than the "plains full" of buffalo that were screwing the environment previously..

So -- there is FRAUD going on here I suspect and we should get some auditing company to come in and PROPERLY balance the books. Take off the share for farm farts an amount EQUAL to the biofart quota preceeding man's farming activities.

Instant reduction in "OUR" emissions.. Anyone want to correct my suspicions that this important science variable got left on the cutting floor????

ON PURPOSE !!!!!!

EDIT::::

http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog...s-account-for-51-percent-of-greenhouse-gases/

In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported that livestock accounted for 18% of greenhouse gases, making livestock emissions “one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems.”

There ya go. No way that 18% is adjusted for pre-farming wildlife that were removed by man because they were destroying the planet with their irresponsible emissions...

Right now -- we are contributing 18% or thereabouts, LESS than we were 20 minutes ago.. Where do I send the bill?

 

[martybegan]

HOWEVER ------ There is a way we could easily cut about 20% of the CO2 emissions charged against man.

A large portion of "our share" is farming and MOST of that is cow and pig farts. I've always considered it unfair to charge me for bovine emissions since we have NO IDEA if they fart more or less than the "plains full" of buffalo that were screwing the environment previously..

So -- there is FRAUD going on here I suspect and we should get some auditing company to come in and PROPERLY balance the books. Take off the share for farm farts an amount EQUAL to the biofart quota preceeding man's farming activities.

Instant reduction in "OUR" emissions.. Anyone want to correct my suspicions that this important science variable got left on the cutting floor????

ON PURPOSE !!!!!!

EDIT::::

Livestock Account for 51% of Greenhouse Gases - Advocacy For Animals

In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported that livestock accounted for 18% of greenhouse gases, making livestock emissions “one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems.”

There ya go. No way that 18% is adjusted for pre-farming wildlife that were removed by man because they were destroying the planet with their irresponsible emissions...

Right now -- we are contributing 18% or thereabouts, LESS than we were 20 minutes ago.. Where do I send the bill?

You need to read about long term carbon release/sequestering and short term carbon release/sequestering.

Anything involving active bilogical organisms is short term carbon. It gets released, it gets absorbed, and barring any die-off or massive biological growth remains pretty much constant.

What AGW proponents worry about is long term carbon, which is sequestered in oil/coal/NG, released when burned, and then not sequestered at the same rate it is being released.

This is what they propose is behind the increase in overall Atmospheric CO2, and their position is this is enough to radically change the climate.

Cow farts were free carbon only a few years ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

HOWEVER ------ There is a way we could easily cut about 20% of the CO2 emissions charged against man.

A large portion of "our share" is farming and MOST of that is cow and pig farts. I've always considered it unfair to charge me for bovine emissions since we have NO IDEA if they fart more or less than the "plains full" of buffalo that were screwing the environment previously..

So -- there is FRAUD going on here I suspect and we should get some auditing company to come in and PROPERLY balance the books. Take off the share for farm farts an amount EQUAL to the biofart quota preceeding man's farming activities.

Instant reduction in "OUR" emissions.. Anyone want to correct my suspicions that this important science variable got left on the cutting floor????

ON PURPOSE !!!!!!

EDIT::::

Livestock Account for 51% of Greenhouse Gases - Advocacy For Animals

In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported that livestock accounted for 18% of greenhouse gases, making livestock emissions “one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems.”

There ya go. No way that 18% is adjusted for pre-farming wildlife that were removed by man because they were destroying the planet with their irresponsible emissions...

Right now -- we are contributing 18% or thereabouts, LESS than we were 20 minutes ago.. Where do I send the bill?

You need to read about long term carbon release/sequestering and short term carbon release/sequestering.

Anything involving active bilogical organisms is short term carbon. It gets released, it gets absorbed, and barring any die-off or massive biological growth remains pretty much constant.

What AGW proponents worry about is long term carbon, which is sequestered in oil/coal/NG, released when burned, and then not sequestered at the same rate it is being released.

This is what they propose is behind the increase in overall Atmospheric CO2, and their position is this is enough to radically change the climate.

Cow farts were free carbon only a few years ago.

Yeah there is that "dead and buried" carbon distinction in real accounting terms. But then why are we being charged AT ALL for the domestic herd when CERTAINLY there was offsetting "herds" before we started to farm..

Gotta to ponder whether I care if it's long or short alive or buried. Because CAGW theory goes that we need to panic NOW because of the natural feedbacks -- FEATURING the release of RIDICULOUS amounts of SEQUESTERED carbon. Certainly at that point, they wouldn't be making a distinction.. No sir -- because that would be NATURAL release of long term carbon...

Or --- do we get charged with those 2ndary releases of arctic methane as well???? We need Ernst and Young to review the ledger sheet..

 

[Mr. H.]

Carbon drives economy.

And GDP. This is proven shit.

The carbon IS the shit.

And you can't fuck with the shit.

 

[skookerasbil]

Carbon drives economy.

And GDP. This is proven shit.

The carbon IS the shit.

And you can't fuck with the shit.

Astute post.

It is the reality not recognized by the warmist crusaders.....and also why Im said 1,000 times on here: The Science doesnt matter.

The mega-conglomerates and the banks run the country no matter who is in charge in DC. Each side of the political spectrum will throw bones to the nutter fringe on both sides just to dupe their asses. But anybody who thinks there is a snowballs chance in hell of the US going to a green economy is batshiite loco........30 years from now, green energy will still be a sliver on the graph of the US market: 100% certainty.

Was driving through a heavy truck route in Jersey on Sunday and passsed an 18 wheeler with this bumper sticker: AMERICA STOPS WORKING WITHOUT TRUCKS. Like I said.....the science doesnt matter.

 

[Mr. H.]

And trucks don't go
without the hydro
carbons....

 

[flacaltenn]

And trucks don't go
without the hydro
carbons....

They MIGHT go cleaner and cheaper on Nat Gas... Nobody would really be opposed to that.. Or on hydrogen eventually...

But no fairy tale stories needs to be written to force those concepts.

 

[Saigon]

We still have not answered the question as to whether we need to.

Well, did we need to stop using the steam engine?

Technologies move forwards; and opposing newer, cleaner, more efficient and cheaper forms on energy because you do not politcally approve of what scientists are telling you doesn't make much sense.

We got rid of the steam engine (for most applications, not all) because its replacements were either better, cheaper, easier to maintain or smaller.

What we have now is going backwards, away from the efficiency of centralization of energy production, away from higher energy densities, and away from maintaining our standard of living, all to the altar of AGW.

Exactly - and if you go and do a little research without the politicalblinkers on , you will that the reason we are ending the use of coal is exactly the same reason we stopped to use the steam engine.

Newer alternatives are cheaper, cleaner and better.