Carbon reductions.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri May 08, 2009 7:10 am

gmc wrote: Can't see it happening without govt action

Gov't action is happening, though - the commitment to reduce CO2 emissions is in the Climate Change Bill, which sets a legally binding target for reducing UK carbon dioxide emission by at least 26 per cent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. The Bill also commits to reducing these levels by 60% 2050, now revised AFAIK to an 80% reduction.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri May 08, 2009 7:11 am

So, 2020 is 11 years away, and we're to reduce carbon emissions by 26%.

How will it work?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri May 08, 2009 7:26 am

Bill, will the oil industry allow easy introduction of carbon free/electric cars.

I'm pretty certain that given the will, efficient, cheap Electric/Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could be built at the drop of a hat. With enough investment it could be done easily. Is the economy ready for such a drastic drop in reliance on oil. The fact of the matter is, the world revolves around oil, whether we like it or not. We go to war over it.

How much influence does the oil industry have in the progress of carbon reduction. A lot if it means taking money from their pockets and I'm sure they wouldnt let that happen readily.

I'd love that change to happen overnight but I feel the oil industires reigns tightening around Governments necks.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri May 08, 2009 7:38 am

Snowfire;1185350 wrote: will the oil industry allow easy introduction of carbon free/electric cars

I don't know - however, it seems likely that the consumer will lead in the case of transport and domestic energy use, due to punitive measures to spur us on, combined with tecnnical developments - we're already seeing both the stick (the Fuel Price escalator, "road tax", the compulsory phasing out of 100W incandescent bulbs, "Energy efficiency" surveys), and the carrot (general financial benefits for electric vehicles, subsidised "low energy" bulbs", grants for home insulation). I wouldn't think that the Oil Industry would do much about it, except diversify and evolve.

ekotter · Post by **ekotter** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:48 pm

I'm in favor of developing technology that has minimal reliance on fossil fuels, not because I believe that humans are causing climate change, but because I believe in progress. However, I do not believe in governments forcing what they see as "progress" on the general public through extreme regulations.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:09 pm

ekotter;1236161 wrote: I'm in favor of developing technology that has minimal reliance on fossil fuels, not because I believe that humans are causing climate change, but because I believe in progress. However, I do not believe in governments forcing what they see as "progress" on the general public through extreme regulations.

Given that the governments of the world are not doing this because they see it a "progress" you shouldn't have a problem with is then.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:30 pm

I'm in favor of developing technology that has minimal reliance on fossil fuels, not because I believe that humans are causing climate change, but because I believe in progress. However, I do not believe in governments forcing what they see as "progress" on the general public through extreme regulations.

Well, the first thing is to say hello, because I haven't met you before.

But the second thing is to say that if you believe climate change is a figment of oppressive govt's imagination I have to wonder where you live. I'm in southern England and I'm already seeing climate change. In the last two years I've seen insects in my garden I've never seen before and the weather has changed. It used to rain, gently, for a week. That hasn't happened in several years. We get the same rain in a day, or half an hour. Now, whether it's just the sun or not, it is still happening and the effects are horrendous. Myself, given the thinning/collapse of ice sheets, I expect to see much more dramatic effects in the next 90 months, and (cynically) no concerted world wide concerted governmental action. If I (and the vast bulk of scientists who look at the issue) am correct the death toll will be not in the millions, but in the thousands of millions.

I hope and pray that you are correct and I am wrong. But that is not what I see.

rose macaskie · Post by **rose macaskie** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:04 am

Hello this is my first entry, i am new. :-3.:wah:

If oil companies don't want hybrid, highly energy efficient cars, then the thing is to think of a way to foil the oil companies. Its usualy fun to try to think of ways round people or groups and possible.

If oil drives our economies, well so does the climate so we have to make some hard choices. Is oil so important or do we just imagine oil is, would it be so bad for the economy if oil companies got knocked? Anyway it would be gradual take a year or two we could not make the change in one jump.

I wish to spread the idea of a complimentary action for reducing climate change to that of reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Here, were I live in spain a lot of land is left fallow each year, mutliply that by all the land left fallow in the world or bared by over grazing and you get a enormous reduction of the areas that are covered with carbon sinking plants. My idea is get these areas covered by cover crops or green fertilisers and enormously increase the amount of plants sinking carbon.

Also, with land left fallow you get an enormouse area of thermal mass, material that heats easily, soil in this case, left bare to the sun and with the global warming gasses out there in the earths atmosphere, reflecting the heat that tries to escape our atmosphere back in towards the earth again it would be better to keep things as cool as we can down here, either covered with live undergrowth or dry undergrowth that aislates the ground from the sun.

Spain is a country with a dry season thats why i say insulation of dry vegetable matter, in summer here the ground cover dries up and Spain is not the only country with a dry season.

Of course various levels of shade and insulation are best, dead vegetable matter lying on the ground, ground cover, bushes and the canopies of trees that hold in the humid air but thats a tall order. rose macaskie.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 11:06 am

Just to keep the thread up to date, last year's totals show that carbon emissions were higher than in any other known year.

No spot, surely not spot, surely we're reducing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

No, dear reader. The trumpeted reductions which we just failed to achieve are in the rate of carbon emissions. We are, apparently, attempting to make smaller the rate of increase in carbon emissions. The atmospheric concentration figure itself will admittedly keep on being the biggest ever seen but it will be less bigger, if that's an allowed expression.

People will, I imagine, cheer to the rafters when the increase in emissions rate is reduced to zero. At which point we'll still be adding, each year, more carbon to the atmospheric concentration than in any previous known year. And, ideally, we might even turn the rate of increase in emissions negative and finally add less in a year than we added in the previous year. Yay.

The idea we might start to reduce the atmospheric concentration as opposed to just reducing the rate of increase is laughable. If we ever do manage to reduce the atmospheric concentration it will be from a startlingly high level, because each year which goes by sees the atmospheric concentration plod on upward.

What do I want? The atmospheric concentration of all constituent gases returned to pre-1600 levels, please. When do I want it? Now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13595174

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 11:28 am

I can see by your blank looks that you failed to keep up. Let me draw an analogy.

We have a half-empty water butt in the garden and we can't see the level. It has a closed tap which drips and water comes in at the top whenever it rains on the roof of the shed.

The level in the butt used to be fairly static, any unusual extra rain just increased the drip rate at the closed tap until the level in the butt sank and the drip slowed again. But around 1600 we started making the shed bigger. Now every time it rains more water goes into the butt than would have gone in during past years. The drip at the closed tap can't remove anything like the volume of water coming in from the larger roof.

If the water butt overflows, goes the story, the results will be catastrophic.

We only have two ways of influencing the level of water in the butt. Either we can open the tap and let out some water - that's called sequestration - or we can reduce the roof size - that's called decreasing the rate of carbon emissions.

At the moment, the roof size is bigger than it's ever been. We built more roof last year. The tap is still shut. The object is to get the water level in the butt to go down.

Solve the puzzle.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 30, 2011 11:39 am

The retort is, of course, that reducing carbon emissions will cost jobs.

Do you recommend new laws be crafted and enacted to achieve your stated goal?

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 11:50 am

Ahso!;1360596 wrote: The retort is, of course, that reducing carbon emissions will cost jobs.

Do you recommend new laws be crafted and enacted to achieve your stated goal?

That depends on the truth or falsity of "If the water butt overflows, goes the story, the results will be catastrophic", doesn't it. If you think it's impossible for there to be a catastrophe then the analogy is false. If a catastrophe is in the frame at some unspecified future level of atmospheric contamination then the analogy is completely sound.

I carefully said that nobody knows where the water level in the butt is at the moment. Maybe the overflow is a long way in the future, maybe it can only be avoided by pulling down part of the shed immediately. My conservative approach would be to remove the shed extensions until some bugger can work out how to open the tap, after which you can build as big a shed as you fancy. The mistake so far is not taking some penetrating oil and a spanner to it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon May 30, 2011 12:02 pm

the other is: It's in God's hands.

We, as a species, have lots of ways of justifying our Long Term Thinking Disability.

Post by **spot** » Mon May 30, 2011 12:05 pm

There is no God, not in any rational interpretation of your opening sentence[1]. I prefer my conservative approach, cautious known territory as opposed to reckless unknown territory.

[1] - You want me to commend modern civilization into the hands of the God that watched the Boxing Day Tsunami? I think not.