Tackling Climate Change?
2. Related to the above: How quickly can (or must) such an emissions decrease be realized? Again, estimates vary and goals ranging from 10 to 25 to 50 years have been put forth—presumably depending the sternness of individual objectives. In your opinion, what time frame is the most feasible?
Answer:
I can't speak to which figure (60%-90%--is the closest. But as to whats a feasible reduction--70% by2050 is definately achievable.
In saying that, I'm using both the existig information (such as the sources you use)--plus an additional factor that is not normally inclded--HOW innovation and technological change work. Specifically, the projections that have been made call for a fairly conservative view of whaht the technological options will be.
We're already seeing those assumptions break down. For example--the cost of solar energy panels is falling rapidly. And there is a LOT of R&D money committed to this one area. Most projections assume more or less connstant costs--or at most modest reductions. But those assumptions are clearly flawed--every indicator points to major reductions incost dwithin the next 5-10 years.
That changes the economics--drastically (especially since its not just solar technology, this accelerating rate of technological change is shared by a wide range of technologies--and its not just cost reductions, its entirely new technologies as well
Much of the reduction can be acheived easily. Here's an example: in the US, doubling the fuel effciency of cars (as a bill now before Congress would mandate) is readily achievable by 2030 (even allowing for time for older cars to reach the end of their useful life. And-an emphasis on expanded mass transit cold absorb projected increases in commuter travel(the bulk of autousage). Result--a 50% cut in gasoline use within20 years--with virtually no negative economic impact and no new technology required.
The key barrier to approaching the 90% reduction mark are threefold:
1) growing power demand worldwide. Meeting this demand with "green" energy is actually easier than shifting from existing systems, since there is no existing infrastructure which must be abandoned or modified. But so far the will to do so is notably lacking, especially in China.
2) Hi-value uses. Some things we use fossil fuels for are both essential and extemely to find effective substitutes--ocean going ships, for example.
3) air travel.
Timeframe--I don't see cutting the use of fossil fuels MORE than 70% being achievable before 2050--thee's simply too large an infrastructure in place to do it faster. Going beyondthat will likely be difficult and take longer.
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
People are not very good at planning ahead. We did nothing to prevent the devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina even though experts had been issuing warnings for years.
So I don't see serious worldwide efforts until there are several more disasters. Don't be surprised if some South Pacific nations are submerged in a typhoon in the next few years. The Monsoon in the Indian Ocean may well weaken or fail, leading to crop loss and famine. Major rivers in South Asia may start drying up in the summer as the glaciers which feed them melt, leading to people dying of thirst and hunger.
I'd estimate it will be twenty years before the world gets serious, and twenty more before we make significant reductions in CO2 output. Probably 100 years before we reduce it enough, and then 200-300 years before we see global warming start to slow down.
Of course I could be wrong. I have been before. But it looks from here like we're in deep doo doo.
I am not sure where you arrive at comment #1 because a lot of people doubt that and thousands upon thousands of scientist doubt as well and more come out against that idea all the time. Global warming is a political ploy to consolidate power.
1. I would rather adapt to the Climate Change than to reduce Carbon Emissions by even 60%. That would cause world wide famon and massive death... not even remotely feasible. To even attempt this, or anything close would be insane.
2. Insanity breads insanity... After the worlds population is reduced by 2/3 the rest would still live in abject poverty... Except , of course, for those that are proposing this stupidity... It's all about control
America First has it exactly right...
Man has absolutely NOTHING to do with global warming. The earth has been a LOT hotter (and cooler) than today, long before SUV's were invented.
BTW - would you like to buy some bogus carbon credits?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I don't buy that "few doubt that greenhouse gas emissions must be decreased drastically." I guess if you consider 100s of millions of people who either disagree or don't really care as "few" you might be right, but I don't buy it.
I also believe that man is blamed for it about 70% because almost all of natural fuel is used up, but then again, there is major natural places on earth were green house gases are released. But we do have a major effect on this. And there nothing we can do to change the past
Most of the projections I've seen have said that we need a 50-90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. I think to avoid the worst consequences, a 50% reduction by 2050 is the least we have to accomplish. That's certainly an attainable goal if we start working toward it within the next decade. It's what the G8 tried to propose but Bush undermined. We have the technology to accomplish it, we just need the will.
Follow the example of the movements glorious leader and buy carbon credits. If some people won't participate then I think a 95% income tax on everyone on the planet might be enough.
Well first of all, I think humans are hardly responsible for any climate change. But the reduction of greenhouse and other toxic gases is important mostly for our respiratory health.
The best way to reduce emissions is to eliminate energy sources that create emissions. That leaves you solar power and windpower, which are incredibly inefficient, hydroelectric power which is okay, and nuclear power which is incredibly efficient and clean. Yes, nuclear reactors have zero emissions and put off much less radiation than a coal burning plant. Yes, the waste is extremely dangerous, because it is so concentrated. The amount of radioactive waste produced in a year is only a fraction of all the crap dumped into the air, ground, and water. And eventually energy will also become cheaper.
This can happen in the next 30-40 years, but only without the hindrance of political retardedness and public paranoia.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: