Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then add that many trees again each following year.
I assumed the forests were harvested every 4 years. That's average for low quality wood, like what goes into MDF.
But the emission compensated was only for 2014.
The world is losing the war against climate change
311–320 of 325 posts
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
honest but silly question: since the only way to deal with the problem is to also implement carbon capture to deal with the existing excess, would the same carbon capture mechanism be also able to cope with the rest of the world continuing to emit carbon at present rates?
Yeah I've thought about this - the best carbon capture system would take CO2 and turn it into pure carbon - or something like coal. So it does seem simpler not to burn coal in the first place. Alternatively if we can grow forests then bury them that could work too. I don't think we can ever have such an efficient carbon capture system in the forseeable future, but we should really be researching this much more than w…
> So it does seem simpler not to burn coal in the first place.
yes, provided you can control what the whole world does
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#313Humanity is the problem. Address it!
One focus should be on the root cause: The human population is the reason for our environmental problems, all-of-them. And the population growth rate is frightening [0]. It renders any other approach almost impossible to succeed. So even if it is an ethically difficult topic it should be addressed!
The conclusion of this line of thinking could be less human population means less environmental problems and more prospects of success for every other approach to stopping climate change. So why not try to think of ways to incentivise birth control?
Is it really to much to ask to stop producing more than 2 offsprings per family? This would bring population growth down. I'm sure otherwise human future is doomed.
To support this you could install tax reduction for no/one/two child/ren. As any solution has to be globally installed, maybe something similar to emission trading with birth rights. Shrinking countries may need more growth, developing countries might need financial help and so on.
I know this is drastic, but you know the saying... [1]
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
[1] https://www.theidioms.com/drastic-times-call-for-drastic-mea...
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
we have the technology already: the cyanobacteria which produced the oxygen that ultimately became the earth's atmosphere. they're even better than trees because they're easier to multiplex and they don't catch on fire. all you need is clean-ish seawater. i even drew up a few designs myself a few months ago. what we lack is the will to put the plans we know will work into action.
I’ve wondered whether this could be tried in a contained/containable area, like the Black Sea, to minimize potential unintended consequences.
i speculate that the black sea is not suitable because it's a bit too far north for optimal sunlight intensity and hours. in principle your idea is good, but it still suffers from the collective action problem.
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#315If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…
I've been looking into carbon capture recently because it's going to be vital to slowing down the warming (and buying us another 50 years for the transition). What surprised me is that I can cover double my two-car-owning European family's carbon footprint via planting trees in the UK at an annual cost of around $400. It'll cost half that to do the same in a developing country. We need a global carbon tax and we need…
Good to hear about tree plantng in the UK at $400 and at $200 to compensate for European-level personal energy use. Please give me the source! Our project TreeDripper.net that promotes tree planting by schoolk in poor countries needs this type of quantative information. Or mail to info@demotech.org , thanks!
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#316If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…
Why does the use of fossil fuels in chemical or plastic production factor into climate change? I've seen this mentioned before and didn't really understand it, and interestingly that person also mentioned Vaclav Smil (in fact, it may have been an article written by him). Is there something I'm missing or is that conflating two realted but different things for no obvious reason? Or does carbon end up in the air due to…
You'll emit carbon dioxide when you make plastic:
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?artic...
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#317If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…
I think you need to be clearer what you mean by innovation. If by innovation you mean new technology coming to save the day then I'm very skeptical it will work out. Teslas are nice but not a match for 1 billion Chinese entering the middle class. If by innovation you mean a drastic change in how carbon is taxed leading to a sensible focus on how energy is consumed then we may have a chance however it means paying $50…
I say innovation in careers and personal lives. We need all sectors to decarbonize, it's not just new tech gadgets and gizmos, but new ways of thinking, servicing, and behaving. Innovative thought is necessary from every corner, both politics for carbon tax, personal diets for less food waste, more muscle-powered transportation (helps with diabetes/obesity too), etc. If we have "business as usual" in too many places, it won't matter if we decarbonize our power sector or our transport. We have to change in thousands of ways.
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#318If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…
Also, between 1998 and 2018 we gained almost 2 billion people.
True, this is a huge aspect that is not discussed enough. Even if we reduce carbon intensity of our energy per capita, we may keep emissions too high simply by providing energy to many more people. I believe a huge aspect of reducing future emission would be educating women and families in developing nations, helping them through the epidemiologic transition to lower birth rates/family size much quicker.
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#319If you look at global power sector emissions from 1998 to 2018, you'll see that while we have dramatically improved upon the energy intensity (energy/capita) and even are making improvements on carbon intensity (carbon/capita), but the sad reality is this: we are still using around 35% coal power in 2018, the same as we did in 1998. And the power sector is the easiest sector to decarbonize, by the way. If you look at…
"For an energy realist, I recommend checking out Vaclav Smil, who has long been predicting 21st century as the century of natural gas" My very recent reading on this topic has lead me to believe that while burning natural gas is quite an improvement in carbon emissions vs. burning coal or oil, unburned natural gas traps quite a bit more heat than carbon dioxide does. It was even suggested that pipeline leaks, manufac…
I believe methane is around 25 times more potent at trapping heat than CO2 (have seen different figures around 25ish). There is a much shorter half-life on that methane, it degrades in the atmosphere much more quickly (<100 vs ~1000 years) than the very stable CO2 molecule. However we have to think of positive feedback loops. The methane will heat us much sooner, which will allow more ice melt, more methane emissions from the permafrost in northern climates, and accelerating the heating we've already seen in polar regions.
Re: The world is losing the war against climate change
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For that one I wasn't too familiar but quickly looked it up and didn't see anyone claiming success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty Think about it. The "War on Poverty" was Lyndon Johnson's campaign to expand Roosevelt's New Deal. Does that sound like something that would prosper under the Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton (consider the congress), and Bush Jr administrations? Unlike the "War on Drugs", whic…
>"the only real thing they have in common are their names." They are names for efforts by the US government to achieve some goal that it never achieves. I don't see what difference the detailed reasons for failure are, I am sure there are many.
So what you're telling me is the reason for failure really isn't important. The fact that one program was championed for 40-50 years while the other one defunded and dismanteled is of no consequence.
The real takeaway here is they were doomed to failure because the US government chose similar bad names.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯