Will recovering global economy thwart efforts to curb global warming?
Pete Spotts | The Christian Science Monitor |
Jun 04, 2011
As the world began to work its way out of the Great Recession, power plants pumped more carbon dioxide into the air than ever in 2010, threatening international goals of bringing global warming under control. According to the UN’s International Energy Agency (IEA), the emissions amounted to some 30.6 billion tons globally of the heat-trapping greenhouse gas, 5 percent more than the previous record, set in 2008. The emissions figure followed a global decline in 2009. Electricity generation is the largest and fastest growing source of CO2, according to the emissions estimates, released May 30. A build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution, along with changes in land use as populations have grown, is widely seen as the driver behind a general warming of Earth's climate, especially over the last 50 years. The report was released as negotiators prepare to gather in Bonn from June 6 to June 17 for an interim round of talks ahead of the main global-climate negotiations set for Durban, South Africa, in late November. In another bit of sobering news for the environment, a separate analysis is showing a plateau in the efficiency with which fossil fuels are used to drive industrial production. As efficiency has increased, less fossil fuel has been necessary to drive economies. But the rate of reducing the amount of fossil fuels an economy needs for a given unit of production has been dropping since 1990, according to Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder who has written widely on the politics of climate. Last year, he calculates, the growth rate in this declining rate of "decarbonization" hit zero. The IEA figures represent "another wake-up call" to increase efforts to curb CO2 emissions, said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist, in a prepared statement. Essentially, emissions are rising faster than they should if the global community stands a chance of holding long-term global-average temperature increases to the stated goal of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. The goal is contained in the agreement coming our of last December's UN-sponsored global climate talks in Cancun, Mexico. With the initial estimate for 2010's emissions figures in hand, Dr. Birol said, “the world has edged incredibly close” to a maximum level negotiators had hoped they'd have about 20 more years to reach – giving them two decades to implement policies that would put them on a path to emissions cuts of 85 to 90 percent over 1990 levels by 2050. If the IEA's estimate holds up, the implication is that to keep to the 2-degree goal, economies will have to slam the brakes on emissions harder and faster than they otherwise would have. “You've got a certain amount of running room in terms of what you can emit into the atmosphere by mid century,” explains Alden Myer, a veteran climate-policy specialist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. “If you use almost all of that up by 2020, technically you might be able to achieve the 2050 goal by crashing emissions to zero in the following couple of decades, but politically and economically, that's not going to happen.” Indeed, as countries try to lay the groundwork for Durban, now is the time to begin the trajectory that bites into the growth in emissions, Mr. Myer says, “but the reality is there's no consensus on how to divide up” the emissions pie “and how to deal with the up-front economic costs” in ways that give developing countries and advanced economies a mutually agreeable strategy for meeting a 2-degree goal. Figures from the IEA report highlight the challenge. The 34 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, made up largely of countries from North America and Europe, plus a small handful of Asian nations, accounted for 40 percent of emissions and 25 percent of emissions growth last year. Countries outside the OECD, with China in the lead, experienced “even stronger increases,” according to the report. Still, on a per-capita basis, China emitted only 5.8 tons per person and India 1.5 tons per person, compared with 10 tons per person averaged over all OECD countries.
by apachiejoe | June 5, 2011 - 9:04am
For all who have never traveled telling them of the brown cloud that hung over Denver or Phoenix was a hoax, no it wasn't. you don't have to be bright to know putting anything in the air that changes the original makeup is not helping air quality. Most leave out what is very simple. The Billions collected in gas and fuel taxes. We have had hydrogen power for 100 years.
by SPECKLEFOOT | June 5, 2011 - 8:44am
Uh, duh, guys? One of the big news items to come out of the Copenhagen summit was that the Chinese, Indians, and NASA all agree that "global warming" has been going on for 10,000 years and is caused by variations in solar activity. NASA released data from as long ago as the Apollo Missions demonstrating that "global warming" is occurring throughout the entire solar system and to the same relative degree, even on planets like Mars that don't have an atmosphere. There's "global warming" on the moon, and it doesn't have an atmosphere, either. Wake up and smell the java. This is just another science hoax. If we are going to fry, we are going to fry. It is caused by the sun and there is NOTHING we can do to change or stop it.
by apachiejoe | June 5, 2011 - 7:46am
It's not hard to add up our tax system that amounts to millions of dollars a day stops our State and Federal Governments from telling people we don't need gas to run a car. Add it up, take the taxes collected out of the system. We have had the ability to run on hydrogen for 100 years. YIPS, how will we tax it. Someone producing hydrogen from his water hose, lord we can't have that. So, support the tax man or use a car that doesn't run on gas. We do not have to use coal or fuel for power.
by NikFromNYC | June 4, 2011 - 9:03pm
China whomps the US in emissions already, so your "per person" stink stinks of the politics of Marx rather than any real interest in a real solution to Global Weirding. http://oi55.tinypic.com/s6rk1j.jpg P.S. Why doesn't your site allow live LINKS? It's called the World Wide Web. Get it? There are web-like *connections* from place to place, from story to story? Why punish your readers with dead links they have to hope their browser will allow to cleanly copy and paste? Here I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming: |













Comments