Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Is the 2°C world a fantasy?

Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 08:10:26

http://kevinanderson.info/blog/full-glo ... ly-before/

- At current (2014) emission levels, the 1000Gt will be consumed in less than 23 years.

- But with CO2 certain to rise over the coming few years, then, at the likely 2020 emission level, there will be ~13.5 years until the full 2°C carbon budget will have been consumed;

i.e. full decarbonisation of energy before 2034.

- CO2 emissions in 2000 were 24.787Gt, in 2012 these had risen to 35.425Gt

- This is a mean growth rate of a little over 3% p.a. for 2000 to 2012; a period that included, arguably, the most severe global financial crisis since the Great Depression.

- Assuming emissions have continued to grow at ~3% p.a., then emissions for this year (2014) are likely to be ~37.5Gt.

- The IPCC’s 1000GtCO2 carbon budget is for the period 2011 to 2100.

- Emissions from 2011 to the end of 2014 (i.e. four months from now), will be ~144Gt, leaving ~856Gt for the period 2015 to 2100.


If emissions were to stabilise at the current (2014) level of ~37.5GtCO2, the remaining 865Gt would be used up in 23 years; i.e. during 2037...

If emissions were to stabilise at the ‘likely’ 2020 emission level of ~45Gt, the remaining 606Gt would be used up in under 14 years, i.e. before 2034.


So we have 19 years, folks (actually much less, since the 2 degree mark is much too high and this only gives us some chance of staying below it). My daughter was born about that long ago, and at my age, it seems like only yesterday.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16918
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 09:30:31

dohboi - And again another analysis of what needs to been done and no hint whatsoever of how it would be FORCED upon the world's economies. Sort of like the old joke about the economist trying to open a can of beans: "First, let's assume we have a can opener..."LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10714
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby GregT » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 09:41:11

ROCKMAN wrote:And again another analysis of what needs to been done and no hint whatsoever of how it would be FORCED upon the world's economies.


Normally problems are identified first, before solutions to the problems are sought out. At this point in time the vast majority of people have no idea as to what the problem is.
GregT
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu 24 Jan 2013, 20:18:20
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 09:53:26

Nicely put, greg.

And of course Kevin Anderson has said many things about means to get there, however unpleasant they may seem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... umLH9kOpOI

http://kevinanderson.info/
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16918
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby Peak_Yeast » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 12:55:33

Yeah I wonder when they discovered we had to change away from oil....


http://transitionvoice.com/2011/01/jon- ... rgy-scoop/
"If democracy is the least bad form of government - then why dont we try it?"
User avatar
Peak_Yeast
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013, 16:54:38
Location: Denmark

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby kuidaskassikaeb » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 13:00:30

Once again static arguments. So I'll just restate my positions.

I have a different list of stopping points. So I'll make some points.

A rational person would stop emitting carbon when the costs are sure to exceed the benefits. We are way past that.

You give up trying to stop emitting carbon when it doesn't any difference anymore, probably because the temperature of the earth has reached the point where it is emitting way more greenhouse gasses than people are. It has decided to move to a new state. I don't think that we are there yet.

In between more warming equals more pain.

In the end we will win this, if only because the deluges, fires, heat waves, droughts, storms and sea level rise will make global warming intolerable. In our favor, these disasters are actually an early sign, not a late sign of warming. So while protests might not be too effective. The weather will make our case for us up to a point. It will force change.
User avatar
kuidaskassikaeb
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri 13 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: western new york

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby AgentR11 » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 13:07:08

Coal fired generation plants have lifespans > 30 yrs.
2034 is 19 years from now.
China is building Coal fired generations plants *right now*.
As are many other countries.

QED. Another proposal, must, or need; that has absolutely ZERO probability of being complied with.
NONE.
NADA.
ZILCH.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR11
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 08:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby GASMON » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 13:31:55

Petrol (gas) in UK now around £1 / litre, down from around £1.40 6 months ago.

My household (natural) Gas and Electricity bill down 3% TODAY, prices valid to May 2016 (supplier is EDF), with no contract out fees, so if other suppliers are cheaper I am free to change.

NO WAY the average Joe is going to shoot his self in his foot - global warming is always some one else's problem - in the future. That's the reality.

By the way its cold & windy here in the UK, the Atlantic is battering us, Scotland bearing the brunt. All our home heaters are on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... owers.html

Gas
The truth is sometimes incorrect
User avatar
GASMON
Prognosticator
Prognosticator
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Lancashire England

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 15:01:41

"In the end we will win this, if only because the deluges, fires, heat waves, droughts, storms and sea level rise will make global warming intolerable."

Sooo, we will win when we realize we have already lost?? 8)

SLR, at least, will not likely hit really hard globally till we are already way, way past being well committed to 2 degrees...probably more like six degrees.

And in any case, extreme weather events by themselves don't necessarily change minds. If they did, Oklahoma and its representatives would be at the forefront of demanding action on climate change. But as it is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle ... story.html
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16918
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 16:21:59

Greg - "At this point in time the vast majority of people have no idea as to what the problem is." Perhaps not but do you think this article will even be read by those folks let alone sway their way of thinking? I seriously doubt it. But "they" wouldn't be the ones FORCING a change. That would be in the hands of the political and corporate interest the majority of who understand the problem IMHO.

So again a nice piece but where is their idea on how to get TPTB to change the attitudes of the majority? So I get back to my point: a problem identified along with its solution is worthless unless a method of getting that solution applied is developed. IOW there really isn't any lack of understanding what the problems are as well as the importance of having them corrected as soon as possible. And even having a solution that sounds viable is still worthless unless one can devise a means of having it implemented.

I’m not trying to be argumentative. But for years I’ve seen countless clear explanations here and at TOD of not only problems we face but occasionally what looks like reasonable solutions. But almost without exception no viable plan to have those solutions implemented. Usually what follows are constant complaints about so and so not willing to listen or change their ways. I’ve got nothing against those rants per se. But, one more time, a solution to a problem without the means of talking folks into it or even forcing them to comply still doesn’t qualify it as a solution. Just another good idea that will wither on the vine.

“Build it and they will come” was a cute line from that movie. But “Define the problem while offering a solution and they will comply” does not work very well in the real world in my experience.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10714
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby kuidaskassikaeb » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 17:04:03

I'm not sure what to say. I am not very optimistic either.

But as a protester from way back there are some differences here.

First, well 350.org, would never organize a heat wave to kill 50,000 people in Europe just to make their point. That would be terrorism, but if the weather does it, well it sure beats standing in the rain with a sign. Usually protest is to prevent something that you think will be bad for something else snail darters, Iraqis, soldiers families, but the thing you're trying to save never comes out and helps, and it's usually not yourself. Adds a wild card to the mix.

The disasters we are seeing now are an early sign. Because of simple statistical facts, these are actually very sensitive indicators of climate change, not things that happen just before the patient dies. They will keep climate on the front page for the rest our lives. Can't buy that kind of PR.

Second a lot of people would like to do a lot about global warming. It's the powers that be that don't. The further you get from Houston, the more they want to do something, and things are slowly happening.

And thirdly, it appears from the people that have actually added up the costs of getting rid of fossil fuels that it would actually be cheap and easy.
User avatar
kuidaskassikaeb
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri 13 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: western new york

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 18:56:12

I must say that I am an academic. And as such, even if the problem is 'purely academic,' as they say--even if there is 0% chance that anything will be done that will prevent utter catastrophe (which is quite close to my actual position)--I, for one, am interested in the academic exercise of knowing what the situation is, and in looking at what we might have done to prevent it.

Our friend the MAN of ROCK is apparently a pragmatist (like most red-blooded Americans--mine runs more pinkish :) ) and sees zero value in even thinking about anything that doesn't bring immediate and clear and essentially guaranteed results, results, results! :lol:

His livelihood but also his own disposition, as far as I've seen, since I've had the great pleasure to follow his various ramblings, insights and disimulations, lead him to have this orientation.

Of course, we would all love to have not only perfect knowledge of the problem, but a perfect plan to solve it and a perfect and completely doable strategy to implement it. Perhaps this happens sometimes on the oil patch and some other places. In my experience, it doesn't happen too often in other areas of endeavor. So whining and pouting that a very brief note doesn't solve every single problem in the world is, well, just being whiny and pouty (word?).

For the record, I have in the past suggested to THE ROCK HIMSELF that he IS THE MAN who could carry out the necessary SOLUTION.

As a oil insider, he has connections throughout the oil patch. As everyone knows who has even read ..00001% of this web site or TOD, the world runs on oil.

As Kevin Anderson, author of the main article being discussed here, point out frequently and elaborately (as R or anyone would know if they had ever once bothered for a moment to take a very brief glance at any of the links I so laboriously copied and pasted for everyone's delectations--and why the he!! do I bother, one wonders :lol: :lol: ), probably the only way at this point to bring about the level of reductions needed in the time needed is to crash the global economy.

And who could do that better than an oil man and a few of his associates, properly placed among crucial places in the energy infrastructure around the globe???

So there's you fabulous answer RM--YOU! As the Nike folks implore: JUST DO IT!!! 8)

(And oh, by the way, this sentence: "there really isn't any lack of understanding what the problems are as well as the importance of having them corrected as soon as possible." is total BS--there are a very few who fully grock the full dimensions of how utterly and totally we are now collectively F**KED as MBS's video in a neighboring thread puts it. And most who do don't want to talk about it. But perhaps by "isn't any" the R man means "among we few, we band of brothers..."?)
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16918
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby drwater » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 20:33:28

From the Rock:

"So again a nice piece but where is their idea on how to get TPTB to change the attitudes of the majority? So I get back to my point: a problem identified along with its solution is worthless unless a method of getting that solution applied is developed. "

There is a solution that is not all that painful if it gets implemented right away - a gradually increasing revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend.
It would cut U.S. CO2 emissions by about 50% in 20 years and apply an equivalent incentive worldwide through border tax adjustments. It and other very similar concepts are starting to get pretty serious consideration in Congress.

See http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org
drwater
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon 12 May 2014, 14:08:28

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 21:59:51

D, There has to be a better way than crashing the global economy. It would be effective but it's too drastic because everybody's living standards and health would suffer. We can (and we are) rapidly introducing renewable energy to displace FFs so I guess this has to be done within a couple of decades. It's doable. We''ll still have an environmental mess to clean up afterwards though.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby ennui2 » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 22:19:08

ROCKMAN wrote:a problem identified along with its solution is worthless unless a method of getting that solution applied is developed.


Graeme should take that to heart before he mistakenly believes that cross-posting x number of news stories to a site like peakoil.com with OCD-like regularity will in any way move the needle on these issues.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 09:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby ennui2 » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 22:21:34

Graeme wrote:We can (and we are) rapidly introducing renewable energy to displace FFs so I guess this has to be done within a couple of decades. It's doable.


You make a lot of sweeping optimistic assessments that aren't really backed up by the data and don't factor in all variables. What happens if the population continues on its upward track during this time, BTW? The scope of the transition just gets worse by virtue of more human footprints. There's no way to just tackle one limits to growth. You have to tackle them all. Band-aids don't work.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 09:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 13 Jan 2015, 23:26:15

We needed to have a 10% per year reduction in emissions starting two years ago. There's no time to wait for a build out of all the necessary alternative energy sources and back ups to support anything like the current level of GDP.

The economy is not worth the planet.

Get your priorities straight!
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16918
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 14 Jan 2015, 13:29:21

It's not going to happen. ET could land tomorrow and pass out a thousand fusion power stations and all that would happen is a few of the oldest and most expensive to maintain units would close down. The new surplus would be quickly consumed as people consume red they way into all sorts of new electricity consuming devices.

I was reading the other day about the predictions for 2015 in the movie Back To The Future II. Nobody in 1985 had a cell phone ipad/tablet and most didn't even have a desktop computer. Sure we have LED lights now, but computers and mobile devices use up many kWe that were used for other stuff before they were invented. The only reason we can run all this new stuff is we got much more efficient with the old stuff. If we had a slew of new power supply we would just get more stuff to use it.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4241
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 14 Jan 2015, 14:01:20

D, We've known about this issue for a long time. I guess you know that Stephen Pacala and Robert H. Socolow from Princeton suggested "the Climate Stabilization Wedges" as a potential mitigation scheme.

Richard G. Richels, a senior engineer at the Electric Power Research Institute, says that the lack of economic precision in the game could create misconceptions:

We have to find out what it's going to cost to make it affordable. By not including the cost issue, people come away from this thinking it will be a piece of cake. It's going to require some serious bucks. If the environment is priceless, we should be willing to pay some serious bucks to protect it.[6]

Another criticism of the game is that one of the premises, i.e. that humanity already has the tools and technologies to halt climate change, is misleading.[11] Marty Hoffert of the New York University Physics Department claims that while the technologies are available in a technical sense, they are not available in an operational sense, and it will take a massive mobilization to make progress. Hoffert explains:

...humanity had the know-how to build nuclear weapons in the late 30s or go to the Moon in the 60s. But it took the Manhattan and Apollo programs to make it so...An Apollo-like program in alternate energy is needed over a broad spectrum of mitigation technologies.[12]

In a 2010 Science article, Hoffert also suggested that 18-25 wedges may be necessary to achieve the goal, given the higher rates of emission growth that have occurred since the original study, even if no new sources were added beginning in 2010.[13]

In June 2008, Joseph Romm argued in Nature magazine that "If we are to have confidence in our ability to stabilize carbon dioxide levels below 450 p.p.m. emissions must average less than 5 GtC per year over the century. This means accelerating the deployment of the... wedges so they begin to take effect in 2015 and are completely operational in much less time than originally modelled by Socolow and Pacala."[14]
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Full Decarbonization by 2034 is Needed

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 14 Jan 2015, 15:59:31

"This means accelerating the deployment of the... wedges so they begin to take effect in [b]2015 and are completely operational in much less time than originally modeled"[/b]

Yeah, how is that working out?

Do you see any real global initiative to even start putting these wedges in place. And of course in the mean time we have pumped much more carbon into the atmosphere and we have discovered that the climate is much more sensitive to those forcings.

From the same article: " scientists recommend freezing and reducing net global emissions immediately." And that was in 2007...

And how has that been going?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16918
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Next

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests