Scientists Sound the Alarm: CO2 Levels

[Forogil]

What I find most interesting in the making plastic from air discussion is the lack of basic chemistry.
Hydrocarbons need hydrogen - plants use water as a source of hydrogen, but sunny empty spaces are normally dry deserts - with little water.

Producing electricity seems simpler - no need for water. If you make the effort to pump in water you could try plant the deserts, but if you don't want to you might as well use it to produce hydrogen using electrolysis (fairly efficient) - and then ship that to places needing energy; that will burn it generating water.

Another simple idea is to just use the plants closer to the CO2 sources: most plants will grow slightly more with increased CO2 level (up to a point); so just pump the CO2 from power plants into greenhouses. As I understand that is already being done.

[Deleted]

Its already to late to do anything. And im ok with Sweden turning in to Philippines.

[falagar112]

Even though all green activists will tell you otherwise (and they ARE important, but mostly because of other reasons) - trees are not our Earths "lungs" - every single tree and plant on this planet is only responsible for roughly 30% of our co2->oxygen conversion on Earth. The other 70%? It's just algae, and only algae. Algae are our lungs, and if you want to GMO anything to speed it up, you will look at algae, not plants or trees.

I think an interesting question that we have to ask as well is:

If not for human "waste" in the atmosphere - would we be sitting in a little ice age right now?

Solar levels should predict the next ice age around this time (lowest sun spot activity since measurements began in 1750) - so in other words, did our co2 emissions "save" us from that ice age?

[Yelmurc]

Because that's a somewhat misleading way to look at it. A better measure is per-capita emissions; Canada's emissions in bulk are tiny, but our per-capita are relatively high (consequence of big distances between cities and higher power costs for heating/cooling).



Plus, while China's emissions HAVE spiked, they've also admitted that it's an issue and have put forth a pretty significant effort to curb them since about 2012; you can see how their per-capita numbers start to even off at that point. So they've started to plateau at per-capita emissions rates that are still pretty decent, globally speaking. Slightly above the EU, but that's more due to the EU's strong mitigation efforts recently than China's lack thereof.

I don't think using per capita with China is a useful stat. For instance China has 205 cars per 1000 people while the US has 797. Also China has 56% of its population in a Urban environment while the US has 82%.

[Endus]

I don't think using per capita with China is a useful stat. For instance China has 205 cars per 1000 people while the US has 797. Also China has 56% of its population in a Urban environment while the US has 82%.

And? This is why per-capita is important. It mitigates for that kind of context, so that population numbers alone don't skew your perceptions.

[Yelmurc]

We can't keep low skilled manufacturing jobs here in the United States they are being replaced with automation because only robots can compete with sub minimum wage workers in countries like China and India. Closing borders and keeping your manufacturing inside the country only makes your businesses less competitive on the global market.

Globalism is not something that can stopped. For example, to make a smart phone, it takes the entire world to produce the parts and materials. The materials and parts literally come from everywhere. And assembling them is not really where the big money comes from. Wouldn't you rather own Apple over Foxconn? So whether or not people want it is irrelevant. They buy smart phones and other stuff so globalism continues.

There is a lot of out of sight out of mind hypocrisy going on with environmentalism and you're right to point out that China is now the biggest offender with CO2 pollution. However, they are also the single largest investor in renewable energy. This seems backwards to me. The United States, having already completed their transition into an advanced economy, should be the world leader in advanced renewable power.

My main points here are that the future is robotic manufacturing and renewable power. Anyone stuck using people and fossil fuels will suffer for it. I'm not sure if that answered your question or not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/w...nvestment.html

Fine then lets build the robots in the USA. As a American citizen I'd rather have those factories here. If the robots do all the labor there is no reason to have them in China instead of the US. As for a smartphone then yes factories produce parts from all over Asia mainly. Why can't some of those parts come from the US or why can't they the phones be assembled in the US?

As for the renewable energy I agree, I'd like to see America spend more on new technologies. I'm not convinced that China is spending all of that out of the goodness of their hearts. i think its that they really screwed up their air and feel that this will help and maybe give them a competitive advantage on energy with the US. But spending money and reducing emissions are two different things. Lets hope they can do it. Because once they get the air pollution down I have a feeling they will spend less and less. Because no one in China is going to protest their governments environmental policy.

- - - Updated - - -

And? This is why per-capita is important. It mitigates for that kind of context, so that population numbers alone don't skew your perceptions.

Its not a useful stat. Because a lot more of those people don't live in a urban environment they live in a rural environment that produces a lot less pollution. Per capita is only useful if the demographics of the populations are similar. If China has a extra 595 cars per 1000 people and 26% more of them lived in Urban area's then you could use those stats. Those people who live in the rural environment don't drive cars. Most of them are poor farmers.

[Breccia]

I don't think using per capita with China is a useful stat. For instance China has 205 cars per 1000 people while the US has 797. Also China has 56% of its population in a Urban environment while the US has 82%.

And? This is why per-capita is important. It mitigates for that kind of context, so that population numbers alone don't skew your perceptions.

To further add to this, what if I said "there are more murders in France every year than Hoboken, New Jersey".

In 2012, there were 666 murders in France, and in 2013, there was one murder in Hoboken.

The population of France is 66 million, the population of Hoboken is 53 thousand.

Now: which is a safer place to live? Hoboken has well over double the murder rate that the entire country of France does. This is very similar to the per capita numbers, where the US is over double the rate of China.

[Endus]

Its not a useful stat. Because a lot more of those people don't live in a urban environment they live in a rural environment that produces a lot less pollution.

And that's why it's useful. Because the average emissions produced by someone in China is far less than that of someone living in the USA. They aren't automatically doing less to combat their emissions because they have three times the population of the USA, any more than Canada is doing way better than the USA because we've got 1/10th the population while having similar per-capita numbers.

Per capita is only useful if the demographics of the populations are similar. If China has a extra 595 cars per 1000 people and 26% more of them lived in Urban area's then you could use those stats. Those people who live in the rural environment don't drive cars. Most of them are poor farmers.

This is literally an attempt to misrepresent the differences in context, because the facts don't support your bias. That's not an honest use of statistics.

[Yelmurc]

And that's why it's useful. Because the average emissions produced by someone in China is far less than that of someone living in the USA. They aren't automatically doing less to combat their emissions because they have three times the population of the USA, any more than Canada is doing way better than the USA because we've got 1/10th the population while having similar per-capita numbers.



This is literally an attempt to misrepresent the differences in context, because the facts don't support your bias. That's not an honest use of statistics.

Let me phrase this another way. China is growing. These Per capita stats are only going to be worse for them in the future. So I applaud them for investing in renewable energy but my point from the beginning was that China doesn't have to answer to its citizens. Its a communist country. Sending all the factories to them because we get a good deal out of it is not a good policy in the long run. Their pollution will only rise and they don't have to be held accountable. Its bad policy for environmentalist.


This chart shows estimates for China's population urban vs rural.

[Endus]

Let me phrase this another way. China is growing. These Per capita stats are only going to be worse for them in the future. So I applaud them for investing in renewable energy but my point from the beginning was that China doesn't have to answer to its citizens. Its a communist country. Sending all the factories to them because we get a good deal out of it is not a good policy in the long run. Their pollution will only rise and they don't have to be held accountable. Its bad policy for environmentalist.


This chart shows estimates for China's population urban vs rural.

Urbanisation isn't the great evil you're presenting it to be. China's already made efforts that have plateaued their emissions per capita, despite increasing urbanization, and they haven't slowed those efforts. They're one of the world leaders when it comes to wind power generation, for instance.

[cubby]

So, really what we ought to ask is: what are the net negatives and benefits of +1-3 C on average?

I've taken a few lecture series on the subject, more for my information and education than anything else. @Endus is the apparent forum expert on this, so read all his stuf, but one thing that I heard that really stood out as "immediate impacts" of a +1-3 C rise, is agriculture.

Imagine just losing 75-80% of the United States' mid-west "bread basket". Just gone, because of too much rain or it heats up and can't grow crops any more. Then farther north cools off, and you think, "hey, we'll just grow there", but it doesn't work that way, because of soil instability and quality (you can't just move/create the high quality soil you find in the midwest - it takes decades of active work to even come close).

And that's just one effect.

[Forogil]

Let me phrase this another way. China is growing. These Per capita stats are only going to be worse for them in the future.

In China, emissions fell by 1% last year (2016), as coal demand declined while the economy expanded by 6.7%.

There were several reasons for this trend: an increasing share of renewables, nuclear and natural gas in the power sector, but also a switch from coal to gas in the industrial and buildings sector that was driven in large part by government policies combatting air pollution.

Two-thirds of China’s electricity demand growth, which was up 5.4%, was supplied by renewables — mostly hydro and wind – as well as nuclear. Five new nuclear reactors were connected to the grid in China, increasing its nuclear generation*by 25%.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/20...nomy-grew.html

[cubby]

The Thing with solar power is its not efficient enough I mean to power a single house you would have to line the entire roof of a house and in many cases any sort of land the people who own said house in order to have enough power and the cost would be insane to install as well with the whole permits and labor and cost of materials. Nuclear is just as bad due to potential hazards that could last even longer than what it would take co2 levels to drop.

The main issue with nuclear is fear and ignorance. Renewable energy source plans, at least in the medium- and long-term, typically include a combination of renewables and nuclear. Some countries actually classify nuclear as renewable.

- - - Updated - - -

In China, emissions fell by 1% last year (2016), as coal demand declined while the economy expanded by 6.7%.

There were several reasons for this trend: an increasing share of renewables, nuclear and natural gas in the power sector, but also a switch from coal to gas in the industrial and buildings sector that was driven in large part by government policies combatting air pollution.

Two-thirds of China’s electricity demand growth, which was up 5.4%, was supplied by renewables — mostly hydro and wind – as well as nuclear. Five new nuclear reactors were connected to the grid in China, increasing its nuclear generation*by 25%.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/20...nomy-grew.html

Natural gas is one of the biggest contributors of climate change. Not disagreeing with your point, just pointing out that nuclear and natural gas are entirely different energy solutions to climate change.

[Forogil]

Natural gas is one of the biggest contributors of climate change. Not disagreeing with your point, just pointing out that nuclear and natural gas are entirely different energy solutions to climate change.

They are different - but compared to coal (which China used before) natural gas generates half the CO2 per energy generated - and nuclear zero (according to IEA). A separate issue is that if natural gas is released in the atmosphere it is a greenhouse gas.

And it wasn't my point - but IEA's.

[Powerogue]

Man it's a good thing Trump is being proactive about this by gutting things like the EPA and building big pipelines to get more oil to burn. Let's continue to break those records!

[Endus]

The main issue with nuclear is fear and ignorance. Renewable energy source plans, at least in the medium- and long-term, typically include a combination of renewables and nuclear. Some countries actually classify nuclear as renewable.

Nuclear's kind of in an odd state; the generation itself is basically emissions-free, and the waste, while godawful in absolute terms, is much easier to secure than the emissions from coal/oil/gas plants, by comparison. And there's a lot of potential for the godawfulness of nuclear waste to be tapped as a resource in the not-so-distant future, so putting it in barrels and sequestering it in properly-sealed bunkers (since I'm not saying the barrels will be enough) is actually relatively responsible.

Natural gas is one of the biggest contributors of climate change. Not disagreeing with your point, just pointing out that nuclear and natural gas are entirely different energy solutions to climate change.

Like Forogil said, it's mostly an issue of relative emissions. It's a lot cleaner than coal or oil generation systems.

The root issue is that a lot of "green" generation systems have functional limitations.

Solar is consistent, but only generates when the Sun is up (obviously). The advantage there is that most of our energy needs are during the daytime, so as a supplement to a power grid, it's actually really effective, to offset that bump of daytime usage, even without worrying about battery storage.

Wind is, of course, dependent on the wind speeds. It's a great benefit to diversify the grid and provide local generation where possible, but it can't be a primary/emergency source.

Hydro is much more reliable, but you still run the risk of long-term droughts forcing you to shut the plant down and hoard the water supply, particularly if the same reservoir is used for drinking waters.

All of those play against each other, of course, but there's still a need for SOME clean, fuel-based generation system, even if it's only used as a stopgap for when green sources aren't providing enough, to prevent brownouts. Nuclear fills that gap pretty well, and if nuclear's out of the picture, natural gas can be an okay fit. Not ideal, but better than alternatives.

I know I didn't mention geothermal or tidal, but those are more consistent but also regionally focused; they're great if they're an option, but a geological cold spot in a landlocked area can't use either.

[Nadiru]

I've taken a few lecture series on the subject, more for my information and education than anything else. @Endus is the apparent forum expert on this, so read all his stuf, but one thing that I heard that really stood out as "immediate impacts" of a +1-3 C rise, is agriculture.

Imagine just losing 75-80% of the United States' mid-west "bread basket". Just gone, because of too much rain or it heats up and can't grow crops any more. Then farther north cools off, and you think, "hey, we'll just grow there", but it doesn't work that way, because of soil instability and quality (you can't just move/create the high quality soil you find in the midwest - it takes decades of active work to even come close).

And that's just one effect.

I'd be surprised if agriculture wasn't more resistant than people expect; geneticists have been developing versions of staple crops that can grow in the agricultural equivalent of a dumpster fire since the 1960s. Corn and grains in particular have been experimented on ad nauseum for fairly obvious reasons, and this benefits the primary US agricultural outputs.

Also, it doesn't take decades to revivify soil; it takes maybe weeks to propagate the microbes which generate the appropriate nutrient fixes and days to mix the soil with the correct balance of materials to improve water retention and allow for root growth.

[Trassk]

I think "sound the alarm" is really an improper way to phrase this.

They were sounding the alarm on this issue 50 years ago. We passed the point of being able to prevent anthropogenic climate change more than a decade back. We've already pushed enough CO2 into the atmosphere that if we cut our emissions to zero, tonight, the warming trend is still going to continue for centuries before the CO2 can be naturally sunk out of the atmosphere. That's the reality of the "400ppm" figure; that's the point where we're darn certain that the atmospheric conditions have changed enough that human emissions are no longer necessary to push the warming. Additional emissions will further exacerbate that warming, but we're already past that tipping point, largely because world governments (ALL world governments, this isn't targeted at anyone) heard the alarm bells the scientists have been ringing, and said, overwhelmingly, "meh". Things like the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Accord were small cautious steps towards doing something, when big leaps were required if it was going to have any long-term effect; just far too little, too late.

Don't take this as "doomsaying", either. We're not doomed. We just need to recognize that we've already fucked the global climate balance up, and get ready to adapt to the consequences, proactively rather than reactively. Which is totally doable. I'm just pointing out that the warnings have been clear for better than 30 years, and we've let it happen regardless. So rather than cry over the milk we've sat watching slowly pour all over the floor rather than picking up the jug and stopping it, let's pick up a mop and deal with it.

So really the point is the only way to pull it back for the next few centuries from getting worse is for humanity to be wiped out by an asteroid. Cool.

[Nadiru]

Nuclear's kind of in an odd state; the generation itself is basically emissions-free, and the waste, while godawful in absolute terms, is much easier to secure than the emissions from coal/oil/gas plants, by comparison. And there's a lot of potential for the godawfulness of nuclear waste to be tapped as a resource in the not-so-distant future, so putting it in barrels and sequestering it in properly-sealed bunkers (since I'm not saying the barrels will be enough) is actually relatively responsible.

The issue with nuclear is primarily economic, not technical. Even if we couldn't repurpose nuclear waste, we have the infrastructure to sequester it away indefinitely, and we're almost at the point where we can chuck that waste into the Sun if it was a really big sticking point. This is irrelevant because we can repurpose that waste for additional power generation, but even if it weren't it wouldn't be a problem. The more pertinent issue for nuclear is that nobody wants to fund an 8 billion dollar water boiler even if it'll boil water continuously for a century. Fortunately, cost declines are imminent for the commercial nuclear sector.

[cubby]

I'd be surprised if agriculture wasn't more resistant than people expect; geneticists have been developing versions of staple crops that can grow in the agricultural equivalent of a dumpster fire since the 1960s. Corn and grains in particular have been experimented on ad nauseum for fairly obvious reasons, and this benefits the primary US agricultural outputs.

You can't just grow corn or wheat where ever you want, regardless of the dumpster fire resilience (I loved that phrase of yours, "the agricultural equivalent of a dumpster fire" - gonna try and use that somewhere later ), it still has to be an agriculture equivalent. If temps rise even a few degrees C, we lose the majority of the bread basket states.

Also, it doesn't take decades to revivify soil; it takes maybe weeks to propagate the microbes which generate the appropriate nutrient fixes and days to mix the soil with the correct balance of materials to improve water retention and allow for root growth.

You may have better info than I do, I've only taken a few farming classes back when I thought it would be interesting, but the information I have says you're dead wrong. I'm open to new info, but I'd love to see some of your sources on that. Not being a dick here, seriously interested in learning new stuff. Also, the climate guy I got my info from, said basically the same thing I'm saying here - temps rise and the U.S. loses most of it's growing capacity in the midwest. And you can't just create that kind of quality soil out of thin air - going north for now-cooler growing weather will get you shitty soil to grow in. You might be able to grow something, but not nearly to the size and scale that we would need.

Also, regarding size and scale, we're talking entire states worth of hectares of soil to revitalize - even if it were possible, the scale would be extremely difficult to produce. At least in any length of time that would matter.

But again, if you have data to back up what you're saying, I'd love to see it (and again, not being a dick, just curious - I'll see if I can find the guy who spoke and his data).

- - - Updated - - -

Nuclear's kind of in an odd state; the generation itself is basically emissions-free, and the waste, while godawful in absolute terms, is much easier to secure than the emissions from coal/oil/gas plants, by comparison. And there's a lot of potential for the godawfulness of nuclear waste to be tapped as a resource in the not-so-distant future, so putting it in barrels and sequestering it in properly-sealed bunkers (since I'm not saying the barrels will be enough) is actually relatively responsible.

I was also blown away at the lack of volume of nuclear waste. The total amount of nuclear waste generated, ever, can fit inside a football stadium. I had always thought it was much, much more. That kind of waste can be easily stored very safely - in fact Finland has a facility ready to go in which multiple cities are bidding to host it - it's that safe nowadays.

Like Forogil said, it's mostly an issue of relative emissions. It's a lot cleaner than coal or oil generation systems.

I understood it to be cleaner, but it's also the worst kind of waste gas to be emitting right now - again, that was at least my understanding. But of course, it is much better than coal/oil.

The root issue is that a lot of "green" generation systems have functional limitations.

Solar is consistent, but only generates when the Sun is up (obviously). The advantage there is that most of our energy needs are during the daytime, so as a supplement to a power grid, it's actually really effective, to offset that bump of daytime usage, even without worrying about battery storage.

Wind is, of course, dependent on the wind speeds. It's a great benefit to diversify the grid and provide local generation where possible, but it can't be a primary/emergency source.

Hydro is much more reliable, but you still run the risk of long-term droughts forcing you to shut the plant down and hoard the water supply, particularly if the same reservoir is used for drinking waters.

All of those play against each other, of course, but there's still a need for SOME clean, fuel-based generation system, even if it's only used as a stopgap for when green sources aren't providing enough, to prevent brownouts. Nuclear fills that gap pretty well, and if nuclear's out of the picture, natural gas can be an okay fit. Not ideal, but better than alternatives.

I know I didn't mention geothermal or tidal, but those are more consistent but also regionally focused; they're great if they're an option, but a geological cold spot in a landlocked area can't use either.

Very interesting. I understand battery storage has come a very long way, and that places like SolarCity already have home-sized batteries that can store power effectively during night.