Global warming response
Grand vision in "Step it up 2007" to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, looks like compounding 3.75% reduction/year (1-0.2^42).
http://www.globalwarmingdayofaction.org/
http://stepitup2007.org/
Actually the first link above says 2%/year for 40 years to get 80%. The PROBLEM is the LINEAR extrapolation means we only have to cut 2% in 2010 and must cut 10% in 2050 (when consumption is supposed to be down 78%).
Oh, well. Environmentalists are not always good at math I guess.
WORSE, you gotta think how inefficient we are now, that the BEST reforms will happen sooner than later. There's always a diminishing return problem - the more you tighten your belt, the more vital organs start getting squished!
Even in a nice case - imagine you drive your car 20,000/year at 20mpg. Then next year you reduce your CO2 by 3.75%. Since you're not buying a new car, you can just cut your milage by 750 miles next year no problem. Then by 2015, you're down to 15,400 miles. Then you buy a new car that gets 30mpg. Now your driving can jump back up to 22,000/year, right? I mean no use "wasting" your consumption now that you're efficient, right? So on the annual base, you can just keep reducing incrementally.
Now that might even be reasonable, but now lets go to electricity usage, or heating. I've got a 94.1% efficient natural gas furnace. I keep my house at 65F in the winter. I can improve the windows and wall insulation perhaps, but I expect after a decade of increments I'll run out of small changes.
ANYWAY, whatever calculus you take, it's clear the cutting CO2 production SOONER than LATER is the ONLY safe bet, knowing it just gets harder.
AND worse than diminishing returns, the U.S. has 5% of the world's population, and consumes 25% of the world's fossil fuels. If we cut our emission by 80% and the rest of the world averages out per capita to equal our 2050 goal AND world population stayed constant, then global emission would not decrease at all.
So sadly I must place myself as one of the skeptics. I appreciate the sentiment, and I'm an idealist at heart, but I'm just a realist to know it is unlikely.
Sometimes I think price (scarcity) alone would be enough to reduce CO2 production. If gasoline costs $15/gallon, the middle class and lower will no longer be able to drive 20,000 miles/year in their SUVs. They'll drive less. If that $15/gal happens to be through a tax in part, it could be used to subsidize the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles for those who can't afford it.
It is a nice thought to believe "peak oil" will reduce our consumption by higher prices, but unfortunately higher prices will lead to more economical "dirtier CO2" - heavy oil, coal, sand tars, oil shales, etc. So our gasoline in 10 years might create 50% MORE CO2 than we do now!
The worst failure in my mind is the rest of the world can believe WE (U.S.) who consume so much more must act FIRST, while if we act alone, we will do nothing for the world letting them merely catch up to us.
Overall I have to have sympathy for the economists who say better to focus on the big stuff - investing in future reductions. I mean for instance, WE ENERGY HOGS might find our biggest return not in solar PV on our roofs, but funding wind turbines in China. Well, every thought is extravagant, living in a nation of debtors. I just think we have to be strategic here.
http://www.globalwarmingdayofaction.org/
http://stepitup2007.org/
Actually the first link above says 2%/year for 40 years to get 80%. The PROBLEM is the LINEAR extrapolation means we only have to cut 2% in 2010 and must cut 10% in 2050 (when consumption is supposed to be down 78%).
Oh, well. Environmentalists are not always good at math I guess.
WORSE, you gotta think how inefficient we are now, that the BEST reforms will happen sooner than later. There's always a diminishing return problem - the more you tighten your belt, the more vital organs start getting squished!
Even in a nice case - imagine you drive your car 20,000/year at 20mpg. Then next year you reduce your CO2 by 3.75%. Since you're not buying a new car, you can just cut your milage by 750 miles next year no problem. Then by 2015, you're down to 15,400 miles. Then you buy a new car that gets 30mpg. Now your driving can jump back up to 22,000/year, right? I mean no use "wasting" your consumption now that you're efficient, right? So on the annual base, you can just keep reducing incrementally.
Now that might even be reasonable, but now lets go to electricity usage, or heating. I've got a 94.1% efficient natural gas furnace. I keep my house at 65F in the winter. I can improve the windows and wall insulation perhaps, but I expect after a decade of increments I'll run out of small changes.
ANYWAY, whatever calculus you take, it's clear the cutting CO2 production SOONER than LATER is the ONLY safe bet, knowing it just gets harder.
AND worse than diminishing returns, the U.S. has 5% of the world's population, and consumes 25% of the world's fossil fuels. If we cut our emission by 80% and the rest of the world averages out per capita to equal our 2050 goal AND world population stayed constant, then global emission would not decrease at all.
So sadly I must place myself as one of the skeptics. I appreciate the sentiment, and I'm an idealist at heart, but I'm just a realist to know it is unlikely.
Sometimes I think price (scarcity) alone would be enough to reduce CO2 production. If gasoline costs $15/gallon, the middle class and lower will no longer be able to drive 20,000 miles/year in their SUVs. They'll drive less. If that $15/gal happens to be through a tax in part, it could be used to subsidize the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles for those who can't afford it.
It is a nice thought to believe "peak oil" will reduce our consumption by higher prices, but unfortunately higher prices will lead to more economical "dirtier CO2" - heavy oil, coal, sand tars, oil shales, etc. So our gasoline in 10 years might create 50% MORE CO2 than we do now!
The worst failure in my mind is the rest of the world can believe WE (U.S.) who consume so much more must act FIRST, while if we act alone, we will do nothing for the world letting them merely catch up to us.
Overall I have to have sympathy for the economists who say better to focus on the big stuff - investing in future reductions. I mean for instance, WE ENERGY HOGS might find our biggest return not in solar PV on our roofs, but funding wind turbines in China. Well, every thought is extravagant, living in a nation of debtors. I just think we have to be strategic here.
posted by Ares Olympus at 8:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home