Green Car Congress: IEA Outlines Scenarios for Global CO2 Reduction by 2050; Transportation Emissions Need to Be Cut Eightfold

« CleanFUEL USA Receives EPA and CA Certification for Propane Engine Conversion System | Main | Petrobras to Study Oil Shale Development in US »

IEA Outlines Scenarios for Global CO2 Reduction by 2050; Transportation Emissions Need to Be Cut Eightfold

9 June 2008

Marginal costs increase significantly between the parity-with-today scenario (ACT Map) and the halving scenario (BLUE Map), in its technology optimistic and pessimistic variants. The cost uncertainty increases as well. Click to enlarge.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has outlined two scenarios delivering two different levels of reduction of energy-related CO₂ emissions by 2050 in its 2008 edition of Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP 2008). One scenario is to return the emissions to the current level by 2050; the other is for a 50% reduction by 2050 from today’s levels.

If governments around the world continue with policies in place to date—the underlying premise in the ETP Baseline scenario to 2050—CO₂ emissions will rise by 130% and oil demand will rise by 70%, according to the IEA. This expansion in oil equals five times today’s production of Saudi Arabia.

In the Baseline scenario, the power generation sector accounts for 44% of total global emissions in 2050, followed by industry, transport, the fuel transformation sector and buildings.

The UN’s IPCC has concluded that emissions must be reduced by 50% to 85% by 2050 if global warming is to be confined to between 2°C and 2.4°C. G8 leaders agreed at the Heiligendamm Summit in 2007 to seriously consider a global 50% CO₂ reduction target.

The ACT Map scenario uses technologies that already exist, or are in an advanced state of development, to bring global CO₂ emission back to current levels by 2050. The BLUE Map scenarios uses more uncertain or revolutionary technologies to reduce CO₂ emissions by 50% from current levels by 2050.

The ACT Map scenario represents an approximate doubling of the generating costs of a coal power station not equipped with CO₂ capture and storage. The marginal cost figure is twice that estimated two years ago in ETP 2006, mainly reflecting accelerating trends in CO₂ emissions and an approximate doubling of some engineering costs, in part due to the declining value of the dollar. Additional investment needs in the energy sector are estimated at US$17 trillion between now and 2050.

Costs in the BLUE Map scenarios are not only substantially higher, but also much more uncertain, because the BLUE scenarios demand deployment of technologies still under development, whose progress and ultimate success are hard to predict.

Based on optimistic assumptions about the progress of key technologies, the BLUE Map scenario requires deployment of all technologies involving costs of up to US$200 per tonne of CO₂ saved when fully commercialized. If the progress of these technologies fails to reach expectations, costs may rise to as much as US$500 per tonne. At the margin, therefore, the BLUE Map scenario requires technologies at least four times as costly as the most expensive technology options needed for ACT Map. BLUE Map could lead to investment costs of up to $41 trillion over the period.

We are very far from sustainable development, despite the widespread recognition of the long-term problem. In fact, CO₂ emissions growth has accelerated considerably in recent years, Higher oil and gas prices result in a rapid switch to coal. Moreover rapid growth in China and India, both coal-based economies, has also contributed to this deteriorating outlook.

ETP 2008 demonstrates the extent of the challenge to reverse these trends. To bring CO₂emissions back to current levels in 2050, all options are needed at a cost of up to US$50/t CO₂. Emissions halving implies that all options up to a cost of US$200/t CO₂ will be needed. This is based on a set of optimistic assumptions for technology development. Under less optimistic assumptions, options that would cost up to US$500/t CO₂ may be needed. Total additional investment needs in technology and deployment between now and 2050 would amount to US$45 trillion, or 1.1% of average annual global GDP over the period.

—Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the IEA

Achieving the BLUE (halving) scenario would require a virtual decarbonization of the power sector, concluded the report. Given the growing demand for electricity, this would mean that on average per year 35 coal and 20 gas-fired power plants would have to be fitted with CO₂ capture and storage (CCS) technology, between 2010 and 2050 at a cost of US$1.5 billion each.

Furthermore, there would have to be an additional 32 new nuclear plants built each year and wind capacity would have to increase by approximately 17,500 turbines each year, said the IEA. This also implies numerous issues that would need to be overcome, such as the NIMBY-attitude (not in my backyard), the need to boost the numbers of engineering and technical graduates, and to resolve the questions on the availability of sufficient geological formations for captured CO₂or geologically stable sites for nuclear reactors or waste storage.

In addition to all this, we would also have to make an eightfold reduction of the carbon intensity of the transport sector. This represents the most difficult and costly step due to the ongoing rapid demand growth and limited potential based on existing technology.

There should be no doubt—meeting the target of a 50% cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge. We would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale. It will essentially require a new global energy revolution which would completely transform the way we produce and use energy. The energy security benefits of such a development, however, would be tremendous. Oil demand by 2050 would be 27% below the level of 2005. Yet massive investments in remaining reserves will be needed to make up for the shortfall as low-reserve provinces are exhausted.

—Nobuo Tanaka

Transportation

Projected transport energy use under the different scenarios. Demand for oil products in 2050 is 37% above the 2005 level in the ACT Map scenario, and 5% above to 38% below the 2005 level in the BLUE cases. Click to enlarge.

According to ETP 2008, the transport sector, which is 98% dependent upon oil, may pose the greatest challenge to meaningful CO₂ emissions reduction of any energy sector. Given a projected 3-fold rise in travel demand to 2050, average emissions per kilometer must be cut by two thirds just to stay even; cuts of 75% or greater are needed for a substantial emissions reduction.

If electricity can be produced sustainably (i.e. with low net GHG emissions) and if electricity storage systems on vehicles improve, then together they can contribute to decarbonizing transportation. The extent of this decarbonization will depend on the availability of low carbon electricity, the extent of technological developments in vehicles and storage systems (e.g. batteries), as well as on a shift to transport modes and vehicle types that can use electricity as a fuel.

For long-haul trucking and international shipping, it appears unlikely that electricity will be important as a fuel unless batteries become far more advanced, since current batteries do not come close to the range needed in these modes. For most types of aircraft, electricity is not considered a serious option for primary propulsion.

Like electricity, hydrogen is an emerging fuel for transport. And like electricity, its use will depend on new types of vehicle propulsion and energy storage systems. Unlike electricity, however, there is no major hydrogen production or distribution system anywhere in the world today.

...There is no precedent in the transport sector for such a shift to an entirely new system of [hydrogen] vehicles and fuels. It is unlikely, in the absence of very strong policy interventions and financial support from governments around the world, that market forces will be sufficient to deliver such an outcome. A basic problem is that the development of such infrastructure will be heavily dependent on the demand for H₂ in transportation, and the demand for H₂ in transportation will be heavily dependent on the availability of the appropriate infrastructure.

Recognizing these concerns and uncertainty, significant penetration of hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles is characterized in only one scenario variant—BLUE FCV success. In BLUE Map, a much slower build-up of H₂ infrastructure and fuel-cell vehicles is assumed, reaching 25% of global LDV sales by 2050. In the BLUE conservative variant, fuel-cell vehicles do not reach the deployment stage, reflecting an implied failure to reduce costs sufficiently through RD&D or to successfully co-ordinate deployment of vehicles and hydrogen fuels.

—ETP 2008

While most attention is focused on light duty vehicles, the other half of demand—trucks, airplanes and ships—may pose an even greater challenge because of the shortage of viable alternatives to oil (such as CO₂-free electricity or hydrogen). The largest demand could be for biomass-to-liquids (BTL) fuel for trucks, airplanes and ships.

ETP 2008 suggests that advanced gasoline powertrains have the potential to approach the efficiency of diesel powertrains over time; both gasoline and diesel advanced powertrains could approach the efficiency of hybridized systems. Click to enlarge.

One medium- to long-term solution for all transport modes, however, must be improved fuel efficiency. Cars and light/medium trucks can achieve an estimated 50% reduction in fuel intensity by 2050 through existing commercial technologies at relatively low cost-per-tonne CO₂,according to the IEA. Heavy trucks, shipping and aircraft can all achieve at least a 30% improvement, perhaps more, at reasonable cost.

Plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles have emerged as an important option, bolstered by the rapid progress in battery technology. Plug-in hybrids could be introduced gradually as infrastructure develops. However, important technological challenges must be overcome before this will become a mass production option, according to the report.

Through efficiency improvement and electrification, light-duty vehicle oil use and tailpipe CO₂ emissions could be cut by 75% or more by 2050. The reduction of well-to-wheel emissions would be even more substantial. Important progress has been achieved in improving fuel cell vehicle (FCV) technologies but barriers remain (such as the cost of fuel cell systems and viability of existing energy storage options), according to ETP 2008. FCVs are likely to need at least another 10-15 years of RD&D before major deployment efforts can begin.

EPT scenarios with increasing reductions show a move from the Baseline to the ACT Map and the BLUE scenarios, with increasing shares of hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and finally electric and fuel cell vehicles is seen. Click to enlarge.

Though an outright reduction in travel demand is not considered in the ETP 2008 analysis, a specific combination of increased rail investments and investments in urban transit and non-motorized transport infrastructure could, together, cut passenger and freight travel around the world by about 10% by 2050 (relative to the baseline), the authors suggest.

Overall, through a combination of strong efficiency gains, partial electrification of some transport modes and significant use of 2^nd generation biofuels, a reduction of about two-thirds in transport GHGs and of 9.5 Gt in tailpipe emissions can be achieved relative to baseline 2050. This would represent a 30% reduction compared to 2005 emissions levels.

To go beyond this, the report says, a major shift to either pure electric vehicles or H₂ fuel cell vehicles, across all modes will be necessary but there remains great uncertainty as to when these technologies may become available at acceptable cost.

ETP 2008 assumptions for the transportation scenarios. Click to enlarge.

Resources

IEA Energy Technology Perspectives

June 9, 2008 in Climate Change, Electric (Battery), Fuel Cells, Fuel Efficiency, Fuels, Hybrids, Hydrogen, Plug-ins, Policy | Permalink | Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/29985438

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference IEA Outlines Scenarios for Global CO2 Reduction by 2050; Transportation Emissions Need to Be Cut Eightfold:

Comments

Barring some Amazing Technology that allows tar sands and shale oil to be produced at rates and at costs competitive to the gushers of old, there just ain't that much oil left. Electrification is a given.

Posted by: Cervus | Jun 9, 2008 12:26:25 PM

About a year ago I built an electric motorcycle. I ride this to work when the weather allows. Today was a great day for 2 wheeled travel.

At night I fill the batteries with solar power and every morning I have a "full tank".

Right now I am working on converting a car to electric power. This car will be on the road soon and I will use the car on days when the weather is not good for motorcycles.

The main thing that is slowing down EV's is a lack of public charge stations. If we had one of these at the park and ride lots around the city, we could have a lot more EV miles driven.

We could build a 1,000 EV charge stations for less money than one fool cell.

Cheers,
Kyle

Posted by: zevutah | Jun 9, 2008 1:37:37 PM

"We could build a 1,000 EV charge stations for less money than one fool cell."

What do we do at those recharging stations for the 4-8 hours that our car battery takes to recharge?

Posted by: | Jun 9, 2008 2:42:37 PM

Dear anonymous,

You're stupid. Never heard of fast charging batteries? And by the way, it's called park and ride. So who cares if it takes 10 minutes or 4 hours?

Posted by: Anne | Jun 9, 2008 3:00:04 PM

Fool cell!

Posted by: predictable sheep | Jun 9, 2008 3:06:04 PM

"Never heard of fast charging batteries?"

Yes. There's absolutely NOTHING that can charge your battery in the 10 minutes it takes to fill your car with gas.

"It's called park and ride."

So we're going to park and ride our way to Grandma's house now? Why don't we just put special Lojacks on everyone's cars right now that will shut the engine off when you drive over 200 miles at once? That'll save plenty of gas. Better yet, how about making everyone wear the ankle bracelets they use for convicts. Go outside of our "territory" and we get a massive shock. That'll teach us to expect freedom in a free country!

Posted by: | Jun 9, 2008 3:07:05 PM

And Japan commits to 60-80% by 2050
And Australia's Garnout reports we need 95% by 2050.
OK!
The previous target being 50-60 by 2050.
Cervus you mention that there is not that much oil left. The relevance of that when lpg, ng and apparently limitless coal? Hang on "Is there not still 50% recoverable oil left?"

There are a lot of respectable commentators on this site, don't get me wrong,
But lately the standard is pretty dismal with sabre rattling and myopia are about the only "novel ideas.
Whats up? can't handle the world so we'll just resort to nationalist rhetoric.
"Axil comment to drop the hammer on them while we still have the means when China reports on the state of battery technology.
Some other commenator then attributes nationalist comments to Cervus etc.
I guess that is one option, as all those nukes might just slow it all down and "we'll be on top"

And some Americans are concerned about thier nations image, And complain about anti American sentiment.

Beware that insulting and nationalism will not solve the problems, and when it comes back to bite us all It will be well and truly earned. http://www.garnautreview.org.au.

Posted by: arnold . | Jun 9, 2008 3:12:11 PM

EVs will not have the range of ICEs for a while (at reasonable cost anyway).
However, most people do not need 400 mile range every day - they need enough to drive to (and perhaps from) work.
If you had charging stations at work, you only need 1 way battery power, otherwise you need 2 way, or a range booster (PHEV, or extended range EV).

It works much better if people can charge at night (in most countries), but if you had a lot of PV or tPV, that might change.

If you want to go on a 2000 mile road trip, rent an ICE (or fuel up the one you are stuck with).

Nothing magic here, just a little organisation.

Posted by: mahonj | Jun 9, 2008 3:13:09 PM

Anon: You don't have to charge in 10 minutes if you can swap the battery. Grandma's house probably has an outside socket. Solar powered charging stations at the ends of transit lines would be nice for commuters (excess feeds into the grid and the shade is nice for the car). If you are worried about long trips, get a PHEV. As for the bracelet, you'll get that off when you've done your time and no longer considered a threat to society.

Posted by: Neil | Jun 9, 2008 3:26:58 PM

It's me, the stupid menace to society. I didn't mean to post anonymously.

My only point is this: most people here seems to think that electric cars are some kind of panacea for our transportation problems, but they have just as many drawbacks and limitations as hydrogen. How much are "battery replacement stations" going to have for the labor to switch out the batteries and the juice to maintain them while they're waiting for your car? People don't seem to think about how much the inventory is going to cost for on-the-road replacement batteries and the logistics of managing said inventory. Not to mention the transportation costs to get them in place.

And, a lot of us are green because we love the outdoors and want to see it preserved. That's why I like the idea of hydrogen best. I see it as having more potential for freedom than electricity will ever have.

Grandma lives in a shack in rural Arkansas and doesn't have electricity, though. Can't charge up there :)

Posted by: Chip K | Jun 9, 2008 3:57:57 PM

mahonj & Neil...Aye! Its time we see that electric motors are 3 times more efficient than ICE, electricity is produced more efficiently than fossil fuels & more efficiently than ever with the increasing renewable energy sources. Its time to see the pluses & not the minuses. Its time to change our ways to make way for superior motive technologies.

Posted by: litesong | Jun 9, 2008 4:08:44 PM

these predictions and necessities are very much contrary to the reality.
americans are not ready to give up the freedom of unlimited personal transportation. we view it as our birthright (i am included as well). it is also a result of living in a giant country with very little reliable access to public transportation outside of a few large cities.
i am a small city in illinois now for work and wanted to bike to work. the only bridge across the river is suicide for a bike! no sidewalk, no shoulder..and even if so, people around here have no idea what to do with a bike and certainly don't "share the road" (the knobbly, poorly maintained road that is horrible to bike on anyway..)
i cannot see emissions decreasing as much as necessary, no matter what kind of dire predictions are made. al gore can do backflips on top of knut the polar bear in the middle of the arctic all summer long and people will still want the convenience of driving whenever, wherever..
unfortunately as well, battery technology is NOWHERE near where it can replace all the vehicles on the road. who wants to stop every 40-80 miles and recharge? especially when i can go 400+ miles in my truck..(like mahonj said)
there are all realistic issues that need to be approached, and not by "green fascism". i have to agree with chip that hydrogen fuel cells offer much more potential, when we can make hydrogen generation carbon-positive (as well as energy positive, and not dependent on refining natural gas to get the hydrogen).
just my $.02 (with the dollar so weak, its probably worth only about .0125)

Posted by: marc | Jun 9, 2008 4:23:15 PM

Chip and marc: certainly gasoline is a marvel of energy density, giving you all kinds of freedom. It's just not a long term option for a whole bunch of reasons. EVs are simply the easiest, cheapest and most likely alternative. Not perfect, but they'll get better over time. Hydrogen? Possible, but read the article for all the caveats. As for your birthright ... you ran out of your inheritance when US lower 48 oil production peaked in 1970. It's time to find an alternative before you go completely bankrupt.

Posted by: Neil | Jun 9, 2008 4:50:10 PM

"As for your birthright ... you ran out of your inheritance when US lower 48 oil production peaked in 1970."

LOL!

Posted by: marcus | Jun 9, 2008 5:06:17 PM

Hopefully, nobody likes fascism of any sort those that practice it would call it something else.
I interporate the obvious joviality re bracelets fool cells as humour and a bit of lite relief shared.
I know some green fascists well and so could say that these leanings don't exist, they wont come up with a solution as they don't understand the human condition. But people like that attach themselves to all sorts of issues.
I'd welcome some thoughtful comment re that.

However this does not change or justify business as usual.
By implying that our response to the global crisis can be in anyway mitigated by referring to green fascists is obviously not a goer either.
People, WE are plainly causing serious concern on this planet and this is the main issue.
I try not to hold back by using namby pamby soft talk no beating around the bush.
If something is said that I intemperate as nasty rhetoric, I feel justified to comment with the required forceful language anything less would be a cop out.

All's good but it gets better when we come here and share and learn.

Posted by: arnold . | Jun 9, 2008 5:19:38 PM

well i'm sorry if i offended. i am not pointing a finger at anyone, only saying that a number of posts here propose draconian measures to limit peoples' freedom. it is important to remember that america is built on freedom, and that people will tend to resist unjust intrusions into what they consider the things that are most personally theirs.
you can laugh at neil's suggestion, but i speak from what i see is the obvious truth. americans consider free and limitless transportation as "theirs". any solution to the problem must take this into account. whether it is long range ev's, or practical hydrogen, or an infinitely better public transportation system, people will not put up with being told they must stay in the same place their whole lives or surrender the mobility of personal transportation. i guess it could best be summed up "once you know, you can never go back".
look at how people struggle to abandon their large trucks and suv's. i actually saw someone driving around in one of these the other day!
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-International-CXT-FA-Rocks-1024x768.jpg
(by himself, of course)
you can poke at me or you can see my point..that lofty ideals and scientific reports will not change peoples' minds.

oh and neil, there is more tar oil in canada (and venezuela, for that matter) then conventional in saudi arabia. additionally, the tupi deepwater field contains billions of barrels of crude that will be recoverable with oil prices over $150/barrel. as long as americans keep paying others will keep producing (not to say i agree, but facts are facts.) i think that ev's are currently not a viable alternative since so much of our energy generation is powered by coal (and will be for a long time. we are basically converting non-point sources to point sources, but are not eliminating the pollution at all).

Posted by: marc | Jun 9, 2008 5:41:26 PM

The challenges are great, and it is certain that pre-conceived notions of life style practices are hard to change. We will just have to keep educating people, to work at it one step at a time.

Eventually the issues will arrive at a point of self preservation, then there will be stark choices. Global crop failures, and ocean die-offs are all possible future scenarios.

Posted by: Lulu | Jun 9, 2008 6:15:24 PM

@ marc
Nice rigg.
You certainly didn't offend me.
I think the GF's if thats the appropriate name will benifit from undersanding just how counterproductive the overbearing attitude refered to can be.

Ive got to watch that I get it right too not to offend. Like the differene between could and couldn't. Above.

ie I wrote "A comment attributed to Cervus"
vis in the posting I'm thinking of, the author is attributed to the following posting.A common mistake.
Its very easy to go balls up we arent all writers.

Posted by: Arnold | Jun 9, 2008 6:26:10 PM

After global crop failures and ocean die-offs, we have global human population die-offs. The planet will reach equilibrium one way or the other; we may just not be around to see it happen.

On the other hand, although I don't see BEVs replacing ICEs for long distance travel any time soon, a combination of BEVs and public transit for commuting plus ICEs and high speed rail for long distance travel I believe does have the potential to drastically reduce emissions without us giving up altogether our "birthright" to drive wherever, whenever.

Posted by: Peter | Jun 9, 2008 6:30:21 PM

Marc,
Your freedom is someone else's death sentence. When America broke free of England, America had the highest living standard in the World. Look around at what your "freedom" has bought us. I am happy for you that you can do whatever you want, but then the last guy on Easter Island probably argued for his birthright (or deathright) as well.

Besides, it is not a matter of all electric or nothing. If I had a plug-in hybrid that got 10 miles on a charge before the ICE kicked in, I could cut my gas usage by 50-80% and still get to Grandma's. At 20 miles, half the drivers could do the same. I could still be free, but it would be cheaper for me to do so -- and the dollar would be worth more.

Posted by: JMartin | Jun 9, 2008 8:39:39 PM

arnold said:

Whats up? can't handle the world so we'll just resort to nationalist rhetoric.
"Axil comment to drop the hammer on them while we still have the means when China reports on the state of battery technology.

Axil said:

Innovation follows capital, which is currently controlled by “Big Money” and multinational corporations. Nether have an interest in the welfare of the U.S.
If we are smart we would put the hammer down on these people while we still have leverage.

By these people I meant “Big Money” and multinational corporations and not China.

By Drop the hammer I meant impose rigorous regulation so that these institutions more properly serve the public interest.

This misinterpretation is always a danger when allegorical language is used.
This rhetoric was not intended as nationalist but populist in nature.
I am sorry to have failed to communicate my true meaning to you arnold, and I hope I have succeeded now.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 9, 2008 8:43:37 PM

Lets set the EV record straight. No one will be “forced” into having one, but it would be nice if they were an available option now that the technology is available.

A few years ago, a good BEV got 50 km on a charge. Now the 100 km range is normal. Advanced BEV cars are achieving 200 km per charge.

For most of us, a second car that gets 100 km is useful, but needs an infrastructure. That is, public charging needs to be available at our normal destinations. Home, Work, and the biggest shopping malls all need spots to recharge. I think I could be happy with plugging in while I shop or eat or watch a movie.

When the BEV range reaches 300 km or 400 km (possible in 5 to 10 years) then it will seriously compete with gas for longer trips. We all need a rest pee and lunch after 3 or 4 hours of driving, so instant recharge is not necessary. Besides, every time I go on an extended trip I rent a car.

Now for the Grid that supplies electricity. Obviously if it goes coal, then much of the environmental benefit of electric cars are negated. There is a better, cheaper option, renewable energy. Here our cheapest and best option is wind. If wind is harnessed with enough turbines over a large enough area, the power becomes very constant and reliable. Wind could supply more power than our grid now uses. The overproduction at night could be converted to hydrogen and reused next day for peaking, with a little in reserve for emergencies. Puff, we are mostly off oil.

So why bother with all this new tech changeover?
Simple, we have to if we wish the world to survive without pollution poisoning the planet.
We have lots of reasons to toss fossil fuels
Acid rain.
Global Warming.
Ocean acidity levels increasing.
Lack of oxygen to breath because we have burned it.
Air laden with soot and particulate matter that cause lung disease.

So getting CO2 levels down is only one reason to embrace Electric transportation. We should see the BEV as tomorrow's technology and welcome it today.

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 9, 2008 9:23:32 PM

Lets set the EV record straight. No one will be “forced” into having one, but it would be nice if they were an available option now that the technology is available.

A few years ago, a good BEV got 50 km on a charge. Now the 100 km range is normal. Advanced BEV cars are achieving 200 km per charge.

So getting CO2 levels down is only one reason to embrace Electric transportation. We should see the BEV as tomorrow's technology and welcome it today.

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 9, 2008 9:33:17 PM

The Future of Things to Come.

The draconian implications reflected in the subject of this thread are stark to a catastrophic degree.

When I try to frame a future in my mines eye beginning around 2050, I think back to the beginning of the 20th century. When tentative use of gasoline first began, and horses filled dirt streets.

Most people were poor and humble and lived in crowded densely packed cities where electric trolleys and subways moved them to and fro from work and play.

Farmland started at the city limits and suburbs were not even dreamed of.

France and England were far away lands and China was inaccessible on the other side of the earth. Only the wealthy could afford to travel by steamer to Europe and were gone for months.

The products used by these city dwellers were manufactured in neighborhood shops and imports from Europe were a rear treasure.

People live, married and died within a few city blocks of their high-rise apartments. And trips outside the city only happen a few times in their lives.

But, if our ancestors could live and be happy with this kind of life so we by necessity can do the same.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 9, 2008 9:44:00 PM

The loons are out in full force.

Close down all the coal electric and gas electric plants; park all the cars and trucks that depend on fossil fuel. Sink all the ships; and scrap all the planes.

And and you would not get close to the amount of CO2 these loons wish to remove. Your rotting starving corpse would put too much CO2 back into the air.

And for what?

Because a Garbage-In, Garbage-Out computer model that can't postdict what has actually occurred for the past ten years, says so. Some interderminate amount of hypothetical input data can be costructed and used to manipulate the model, and it now predicts an impossibility for 100 years from now?

And what is the the Impossibility?

Why the temperature might increase a degree or two. The End of the World! Ridiculous.

That temperature change is Less than the the temperature changes from 11:00AM until noon, on any typical day. And this will end the World? Get Real.

They speak of "tipping" points. Although ther have been none in Earth's 4 billion year history.
What is the temperature difference daily?

Its a lot more than a few degrees between midnight and noon, most days; or even 15 degrees for that matter. Yet we are supposed to bow down, open our wallets, accept our slave staus, and kow-tow to our self-annointed betters, as they decide how to spend our money.

Right!

Wacked out losers. They get more strident and their warnings more melodramatic every time, as fewer and fewer people unquestioningly believe their mad prophecies. Meanwhile the scientific evidence piles up that they are completely wrong.

(Isn't it a dead give away that they always want a nice round number like 50%, or 95%, in their one-up-manship? If there was any scientific analysis behind the numbers, wouldn't it likely be 21.87% or 56.93% or some such?)

Posted by: | Jun 10, 2008 1:10:19 AM

I can see how my mind saw hammer and people
"If we are smart we would put the hammer down on these people while we still have leverage." combined the two and felt a bit ill.
I've sometimes wished I could get in and changed some words I wrote or read others work more carefully.
regs all(apology frm arn)

Axil is exactly right that people can be very happy with very little, particularly when there is not much disparity.
We have everything that matters, advances in so many areas this century. Humanity through virtue of having lived have gained huge knowledge and experience in the last decades particularly.
This is our true wealth.

I do think we need to recognise population pressures and manage it's destructive outcomes. We recognise this as a fact in every other specie rather than letting nature do its job.
I can see how wars have been used for this purpose in evolution and survives till today as it worked.
It still seems considered an option for those that havent the commitment to peaceful resolution.
Someone introduced me to the term "Dis economies of scale" as the partner to economies of scale.
When we are all walking over each other.
We also need to remember that we share this planet with all the other species, we don't own it and the planet cant support us without their assistance.

Posted by: arnold | Jun 10, 2008 1:23:50 AM

AMEN AXIL!

When the weatherman can't tell me the exact temp for tomorrow-nevermind next week- how can people react to this sort of article without disgust? I read these dire predictions for 20-50-100 years away and wonder why they can't tell me, using advanced radar, if it'll rain even 12 HOURS from now. They predict a few degrees 50 years from now and the TRILLIONS of dollars that will need to be spent. Sounds to me like we are all being prepped for the biggest robbery in history.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Posted by: CommonSense | Jun 10, 2008 3:44:25 AM

Well, CommonSense, I can't tell you exactly what the result of rolling a pair of fair dice will be, but it'll more likely be closer to 6 then 1 or 12.

Which is another way of saying that though the climate models may well be wrong, the fact that they do not predict the weather tomorrow isn't particularly relevant, if only because these models make no attempt to do such a thing.

Posted by: | Jun 10, 2008 5:56:33 AM

@Anonymous:

"There's absolutely NOTHING that can charge your battery in the 10 minutes it takes to fill your car with gas."

Wrong.

Aerovironment recently made a live demonstration in front of assembled journalists as they charged a 30 kWh (ie 150 mile range) Altair nanotech lithium-ion battery from 0% to 100% in just 10 minutes. The battery barely even got warm.

The secret is to simply use a 3-phase 440-volt supply, which is available pretty much in every factory in the country, so could easily be rolled out to the "gas" forecourts.

Posted by: clett | Jun 10, 2008 7:23:06 AM

Many of us seem to want the perfect BEV with 400+ miles range, recharge time of less than 5 minutes, 1/4 mile in less than 6 seconds, 100+ mph, room for 6 heavy weight, no more than $20K, etc..

This type of vehicle won't be around for another 15 to 20 years (if ever).

Meanwhile, we could have (by 2010-12) PHEVs (various sizes) with electric range of 20 to 50 miles, overnight recharge, 1/4 miles in about 10 seconds, up to 90 mph, room for 4 average size adults @ $30K to $60K if built in USA and @ $15K to $30K if built in China.

Small quick charge BEVs with limited range will be around soon. Range, size, speed, charging time etc will be improved with time (15 to 20 years) as were ICE vehicles.

Eventually (2020-2025?), when batteries are improved (200% to 300%)and vehicle weight is reduced, BEVs will be the most affordable vehicles. ICE and PHEVs will be progressively phased out.

If you're in a hurry, you could buy a good hybrid such as the Prius 2008 or the improved (January) 2009 new generation. (if you can find one)

Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 10, 2008 7:54:06 AM

Many of us seem to want the perfect BEV with 400+ miles range, recharge time of less than 5 minutes, 1/4 mile in less than 6 seconds, 100+ mph, room for 6 heavy weight, no more than $20K, etc..

This type of vehicle won't be around for another 15 to 20 years (if ever).

Small quick charge BEVs with limited range will be around soon. Range, size, speed, charging time etc will be improved with time (15 to 20 years) as were ICE vehicles.

Eventually (2020-2025?), when batteries are improved (200% to 300%)and vehicle weight is reduced, BEVs will be the most affordable vehicles. ICE and PHEVs will be progressively phased out.

If you're in a hurry, you could buy a good hybrid such as the Prius 2008 or the improved (January) 2009 new generation. (if you can find one)

Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 10, 2008 8:04:02 AM

Reference:
That temperature change is Less than the the temperature changes from 11:00AM until noon, on any typical day. And this will end the World? Get Real.
They speak of "tipping" points. Although ther(sic) have been none in Earth's 4 billion year history.
What is the temperature difference daily?

Something did happen before in the Earth's 4 billion year history; It was called the The Great Dying where the only thing that survived was some slime at the bottom of the sea. Such "tipping" points are the reasons why the experts are so fearful of the unpredictable future that we face.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 10, 2008 8:41:50 AM

link: the great dying

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/28jan_extinction.htm

Posted by: Axil | Jun 10, 2008 8:46:16 AM

Christmas Past

As the cost of energy has increased, the wealth of the average person has gone down proportionally.

If this trend continues, the gap between rich and poor will widen. On the average, most of us will fall into a state of relative destitution compared to where we stand now.

In point of fact, if we are entering into a new energy starved age, the technology that we discuss here will only be accessible by the rich: the CEO, the rock star, the politician, and the elite.

We will be like homeless orphaned children with our noses pressed against the department store window looking at the bright shiny Christmas toys we can never expect to receive.

Fortunately, as residence of the developed world, we won’t experience the famine in the third world; but our food will be plain and not much of it.

I don’t mean to be an alarmist, just a realest, but I fear that we have lived through the good times in human history.

We are between the ‘rock’ of diminished energy and the ‘hard place’ of climate disaster.

Let us pray that such a new age doesn’t come to pass. But, I fear, this danger is now before us.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 10, 2008 9:57:59 AM

@Axil,

And the Great Dying(s) had nothing to do with weather/climate. A meteorite, ending the Triassic, or a Supervolcano, ending the Permian, creating a vast lava plain extending over half a continent, had nothing to do with the increase of a trace gas, from almost nothing, to a little more than next to nothing.

If I were you, and seeking an end-of-world scenario to dread; I would be much more concerned with the continental configuration that gives rise to ocean curents that create periodic glaciations. Some few dozen have occured over the past several ten million years.

And that is the anti-thesis of, and NOT, Global Warming.

I. Shavriv has submitted speculative papers on the galactic-transits that might contribute to these glaciations.

Milankovitch has published papers on orbital eccentricities, that may contribute to peridic glaciation. Once again, nothing to do with trace gases.

Others have speculated and questioned the closure of the SA and NA waterway, contributing to the configuratione of present ocean conveyors, as a partial cause for glaciations. Once again, nothing to do with a tiny trace gas. A trace that has gradually been leaving the atmosphere over geologic time.

Even other scientists have speculated at what low level of CO2 does plant life become unsupportable. This scientific speculation is the ONLY scientific speculation that would have any possible "Great Dying" effect related to trace CO2 gas; and that is in the OPPOSITE direction to your present day fear-mongers. It is a more valid, but hardly pressing concern, since plant life is obviously much more fecund and luxuriant, in somewhat elevated levels of CO2, up to about 1300 ppm.

Posted by: | Jun 10, 2008 10:17:22 AM

One of the candidates for the cause of the great Dying was CO2 as follows for the NASA paper:

Our planet was in the throes of severe volcanism. In a region that is now called Siberia, 1.5 million cubic kilometers of lava flowed from an awesome fissure in the crust. …Such an eruption would have scorched vast expanses of land, clouded the atmosphere with dust, and released climate-altering greenhouse gases.

But this event happen so long ago nothing can be said with any certainty. I reference it only because is elucidates what causes fear about GW among the experts.

You are absolutely correct in many of the points in your post involving GW. It’s not a slight global warming that is of concern but “chaotic climate” caused by a tipping point in the global heat distribution system that world ocean currents provide.

Reference:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/edsumm/e080515-01.html

The New 800,000 year ice core study shows a pattern of climate behavior that deals with ocean circulation cycles as a causative factor in climate change.

At the end of most recent epochs of warming, arctic ice cover disappeared. Climate became increasing variable, with increasing swings in year to year average temperature, both on the warmer and cooler side. The disappearance of the arctic ice cover caused a breakdown of the worldwide ocean circulation cycle which resulted in a world wide failure in the heat distribution system.

This failure then resulted in the onset of the ice age.

In summary, the condition of concern is as follows:

- loss in arctic ice cover
- increase in yearly climate variability
- Breakdown of worldwide ocean currents.

One fact from the study that made the evening news is that the current CO2 concentration is the highest it has been is the last 800,000 years. The previous maximum concentrations immediately preceded the onset of all previous ice ages.

In addition, the Earth is entering the next Milankovitch orbital perturbation, which predisposes the decent into an ice age.

In summary, the period of climate weather we have experience over the last 10,000 years is at risk.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 10, 2008 11:12:45 AM

I've been reading this thread with interest and watched as it quickly centered around EVs and the 'red herring' of limited range - I say red herring because really, 90% of the time, you wont need long range. But what if you do? I've seen two ideas put foreward to solve that problem; ICE car rentals and battery swapping, and would like to suggest a third; pusher trailers.

The problem with car rentals is people buy cars to express their personalities and a rental wouldn't fit. The problem with battery swapping is you need a standardized system so you could automate it and that forces design restraints on the cars. But if we go with pusher trailers, which some EV drivers are already using, all you car needs is a trailer hitch. The trailers could carry an ICE range extender (with the engines matched to whatever fuel was available) or a extra battery pack, and they could be updated with any new technology as we come up with it even if we keep the cars the same. They could be rented, swapped at depos or owned. I think it would be the most flexible solution.

Posted by: ai_vin | Jun 10, 2008 1:21:57 PM

wrt ev range:

while many people would be suited with a 40mi round trip range (which pushes the edges of my commute, meaning if i get stuck in traffic my truck dies on the way home), many others would not. case in point, i used to do delivery. most people who are from where i am from have to drive at least 30-50 mi each way to get to work. the same with the substantial portion of our country that lives in rural areas.
as another more extreme example at my last job one salesman would regularly drive 200+ miles in a single day every day around the three-county area to make sales.
and that doesn't even get into the issue of recreational long-distance driving. towing a trailer? battery replacement? these are some nutcase ideas. who's going to tow a ton of battery behind them, and what's going to be the efficiency of a vehicle that has to tow that much weight.
nobody has talked about the extreme impact of producing batteries either...
so i guess i am partially agreeing with john taylor that evs are right for some people, but must reiterate my point that about 1/2 of all US energy is currently made from coal. another 13% is made from natural gas. wind turbines, while a laudable idea, are nowhere near reliable enough to provide the kind of baseline power you get from coal. they are also not able to be instantly switched on like natural gas. it's summer, 100+ outside, you turn on your lights or ac and there's no peak generation because they turn on the turbines and there's no wind.
don't get me wrong i love wind as much as the next guy but right now it's just not there. so in the meanwhile that means dealing with a coal-fueled reality. which means that ev's are merely transferring the pollution from tailpipe to smokestack.

Posted by: marc | Jun 10, 2008 2:04:57 PM

I told you so!!!!!!

I said the reason bushy and gang went h2 was they expected all along to need to drop emmissions so far that they might as well jump all the way abd leapfrog.

At first you will see h2 mostly replacing deisel generators and portable stuff like laptops and power units for various thingies.

You will also see rich guy h2 ice sports cars and trucks as again h2 will be cheapwe rgwn gas.
Vy 2020 a solid battery car fleet will combine with a solid h2 fuel cell and ice fleet... ti di absolutely nothing in saving the planet as car sales rocket elsewhere...

By 2030 bev and fc will have taken over half the market... here.. but less then that most places. bevs will go fairly short distances on battery power for the most part with rich peeps going 300 miles.. h2 cars will go 500 miles on a 20 buck fill and rich cars will go more if they want.

And yes we will fail to make the deadline and yes things will get messy.

The good news is im fatter then you so you will starve first and ill eat you.. the bad news is you prolly taste bad.

Posted by: wintermane | Jun 10, 2008 2:15:27 PM

"The good news is im fatter then you so you will starve first and ill eat you.. the bad news is you prolly taste bad."

lol...as my brothers would say "fat f*ck!!" :) (no offense its just a joke)
just for that ima eat a whole bunch of nasty tasting stuff before i die so i tasty extra-nasty for you.

Posted by: marc | Jun 10, 2008 2:25:14 PM

Quoth marc:

additionally, the tupi deepwater field contains billions of barrels of crude that will be recoverable with oil prices over $150/barrel.

The world burns ~85 million barrels a day; a billion barrels lasts a bit under 12 days. Suppose Tupi contains 20 billion recoverable barrels; we'd burn it up in 8 months.

Later, he writes:

while many people would be suited with a 40mi round trip range (which pushes the edges of my commute, meaning if i get stuck in traffic my truck dies on the way home), many others would not.

I fear you misunderstand. The EV's would have ~90 mile range at worst (old-tech lead-acid batteries); the vehicles with ~40 mile electric range would be the PHEV's, and the only thing you'd notice when you got stuck in traffic is that the sustainer would kick on and you might have to buy gas that month. Even the people with 50-60 mile commutes would save huge amounts of fuel by running the first 40 miles on wall-juice.

And the anonymous (probably Kit P) troll wrote:

They speak of "tipping" points. Although ther have been none in Earth's 4 billion year history.

Except for the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, among others. Which happened to correspond to a mass-extinction event.

But we don't expect anything more than blatant lies from our trolls, do we?

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 10, 2008 7:01:56 PM

From the Wiki article referenced by E-P:

“planktonic foramanifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time…The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing - which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders, including the Artiodactyla, horses and primates, appeared as if from nowhere, and spread across the globe, 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.”

“no change in the distribution of calcareous nannoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM. Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[25] and weakly calcified forams.”

Probable causes:

“Evidence currently seems to favour an increase in volcanic activity as the main perpetrator.”

“… combustion of prodigal quantities of peat was once postulated, but in order to produce the δ13C excursion observed, over 90% of the Earth's biomass would have to be combusted. Since plants in fact grew more voraciously during the period of the PETM, this theory has been discounted.”

Yuo got to improve your reading skills, Poet.

Posted by: Andrey levin | Jun 10, 2008 8:06:39 PM

"But we don't expect anything more than blatant lies from our trolls, do we?"

why insult me for expressing my opinion? i don't go around saying you're a pretentious ass..
btw show me a single production ev with a 100 mile range.

hmm... still waiting..

i was arguing against straight EV's, not hybrids. my arguments still hold, a 40 mile range EV (again, show me a single production vehicle that can reach even this modest target) will run against all of the pitfalls i have mentioned.

and tupi is merely a small part of the new crop of oil discoveries that we will find viable in the $100/barrel+ world. also there are the tar sands of athabasca and the orinoco (each of which contain about as much oil as saudi arabia), oil shale in colorado which we have not even started to recover (but which becomes closer to a reality every day oil prices rise), and of course ANWAR and our continental shelf (which i do not agree with drilling, but are still there).
so why don't you get your facts straight before you go running your mouth and embarrassing yourself..

Posted by: marc | Jun 10, 2008 8:49:59 PM

@marc

Your list of new potential oil sources should be encouraging, but the current state of the oil production business won’t take advantage of them.

The national oil companies are not putting money into oil exploration; instead they are distributing petrodollars to their population for income redistribution to suppress social unrest.

Furthermore, the five major oil companies have been fiscally conservative and failed to invest capital for new production as a result of their failure to profit from such investment in the mid 80s. Then the price of oil dropped after they made major capital investments and they don’t want to be burnt again

The 20 secondary oil drillers are vigorous but lack the capital to take on big projects.

In other words, the oil is there but no one is going to get it, since they make the same margin no matter what.

Until someone spends big money to produce more oil, the growing demand will not be meet.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 10, 2008 10:34:55 PM

Instead of finding new oil, this is how your gas money is spent.

Reference:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7446923.stm

Diversification

With the price of oil showing no sign of weakening, the government of Saudi Arabia is planning for a future when the commodity will eventually run out.

The revenues that are being generated are enormous - every day more than 11 million barrels of oil are pumped. At current market prices that is worth well over $1bn (£510m) daily.

During the last oil boom, vast sums of money were spent by the government on projects that failed - Saudi Arabia famously tried to "make the desert bloom" with water-intensive agriculture schemes.
Now the Kingdom is trying to invest more sensibly in the future to solve several challenges:

• Diversification of the economy

• A booming population (40% of Saudis are under 15)

• Growing unemployment

• Improving skills and education amongst Saudis

"I think it is most important for Saudi Arabia to diversify," said Saad al-Dosari, the President and CEO of the Rabigh Refinery and Petrochemical Company, near Jeddah.

"You are not just talking about the economy and getting revenues. You are talking about creating job opportunities. You are talking about establishing an industrial infrastructure for the future generations".

Posted by: Axil | Jun 10, 2008 11:30:27 PM

Axil:

And why exactly “national oil companies” should waste money on new exploration when they are progressively prohibited to exploit already found domestic oil reserves?

Posted by: Andrey Levin | Jun 11, 2008 12:09:42 AM

The 5 major oil companies are not drilling on the leases that they are currently holding drilling permits on.

Referance:

Renita Jablonski: When one goes up, the other goes down. Oil rallied towards $133 a barrel this morning on a weaker dollar. Also, there are concerns about stagnating production in Russia and other countries outside of OPEC.

This week in Congress, executives from big oil companies have been telling lawmakers the fastest way to reduce prices for oil and gas is to allow more oil drilling in the U.S. But as Marketplace's Bob Moon reports, oil companies aren't even tapping the domestic petroleum reserves they already have.
________________________________________
Moon: Oil execs spent the past couple of days claiming their hands are tied when it comes to drilling for more oil here at home, and it's up to Congress to change that.

Peter Robertson: Open up more federal lands and allow us to responsibly produce more American oil and natural gas.

Chevron Vice Chairman Peter Robertson chided lawmakers for "limiting development without good reason."

But at the Center for American Progress, energy expert Daniel Weiss says those same execs have been making excuses for years that they can't keep up with the government drilling permits they already have. By some estimates, 75 to 80 percent of existing leases are untapped.

Daniel Weiss: Why would they want us to open up new areas if they don't even have the infrastructure capacity to explore and develop existing leases? I think it's about something more fundamental: greed.

Some lawmakers are pointing back at the oil companies, complaining they can sit on a lease for 30 years or more without producing a drop. All the while, the idle holdings can still be used to inflate their theoretical reserves -- and boost their stock prices.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 11, 2008 7:42:08 AM

to Marc: you ask:
"40 mile range EV (again, show me a single production vehicle that can reach even this modest target) "

I guess you haven't been around here very long, and haven't heard of the Tesla Roadster. It apparently gets 220 miles per charge, and is in production right now.

www.teslamotors.com

Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 11, 2008 9:00:54 PM

The hurdles to reducing carbon emissions are 95% political and 5% technological. The problem is that the people at the top -- the corrupt leaders of the US getting stinking rich off the Iraq war, and all the CEO's of the big corps calling the shots and in bed with the political leaders -- are just happy with the way things are right now.

Something like 100% of federal US taxes go to paying interest on the debt, correct me if I'm wrong. That's debt incurred to fight the Iraq war to enrich Haliburton and every politician lining his pockets with its profits, and to do absolutely nothing productive to help the economy or situation of the average American.

That's politics. The US empire is on its last leg. It crumbled from the inside, as all major empires have. It got too big and greed took over. Dangle a chocolate bar in front of the masses to keep them moribund on the couch glued to Homer Simpson, instill in them a fear of Muslim terrorists to divert their attention, and you can get away with just about anything.

Right now we could stop any increase in CO2 production and start the path towards reducing emissions.

1) no new GHG emitting power plants. Only wind farms. These concerns about reliability problems with wind farms are not valid, and not even a concern until upwards of 20% of power is produced by wind farms. Surely corrupt Enron-type fiascos present a greater problem.

2) PHEV's will be out in a couple years, which will increase electricity consumption, and reduce gasoline consumption. See no. 1.

3) This approach will work for a while. Within a few years solar farms will be competitive. Then Nevada and California can carpet their deserts with them.

4) Stop building urban sprawl suburbs. This is a political solution, but may be more difficult to achieve as the average American would have trouble fitting on a bus, let alone riding a bike.

This is a fully reasonable plan for the next 10-15 years. Then the ball will be rolling.

Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 11, 2008 9:21:04 PM

"40 mile range EV (again, show me a single production vehicle that can reach even this modest target) "

http://www.commutercars.com/ - 40-80 miles maximum with Lead-Acid batteries to over 200 miles with Li-Ion batteries

Posted by: ai_vin | Jun 11, 2008 9:29:07 PM

To the anonymous troll who earlier dismissed the concerns about reaching the `tipping point``, you are incorrect in almost everything you said.

Billions of years ago CO2 concentrations were much higher than they are today (as the Sun was much dimmer than today), so the concern that we are all going to vaporize is not valid, at least within the next hundred million years. Within a billion years the Earth will be swallowed by the Sun anyways but that`s long off.

The concern is that we will cross a ``tipping point`` causing the polar ice caps to melt. And once this starts, there will unlikely be anything we can do to stop it. This would dispossess a large portion of the world`s population, since most people live adjacent to the sea. The problem is, we are running out of land to put and support these people, which is going to get even worse as the wealth of developing nations increases which requires even more land.

In short, what we are facing is that the world will become a really unpleasant place, with way too many people living in a degraded environment. The stresses of this would cause even greater political strife which leads to economic hardships which then leads to higher birth rates, as affluent societies have lower birth rates. Basically, a spiraling festering ball of nastiness may be on the Earth`s horizon in the next 100 years or so. Sounds sillyÉ Look at any of the other great empires that died.

The science linking CO2 to this possibility is very strong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

This graph demonstrates inarguable proof of the positive feedback relationship between CO2 and global temperature. These swings are largely, though not entirely, explained by fluctuations in the Milankovitch cycles, as mentioned earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 11, 2008 9:37:04 PM

I retract my statement that 100% of federal tax goes to service the debt. I don`t know the numbers. Can someone enlighten me, it seems to be a hard thing to find, as I`m sure many people want it to be.

Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 11, 2008 9:56:09 PM

As soon as China gets on board america can follow but if they dont then we could go to 0 co2 and they would still produce as much and more than we are. dont whine to me about per capita if global warming is real then its the total number of tons period not per capita.

Posted by: jd | Jun 23, 2008 6:46:20 PM

A Universal Solution for CO2 Reduction - an example

Re: International Energy Agency World Outlook (IEA)

World Outlook
"The world needs ever increasing energy supplies to sustain economic growth and development. But energy resources are under pressure and CO2 emissions from today’s energy use already threaten our climate.

What options do we have for switching to a cleaner and more efficient energy future? How much will it cost? And what policies do we need?"

What options do we have for switching to a cleaner and more efficient energy future?

First we need to invent a device to existing entry points of CO2 into the air. CC's Black Box device is the invention.

Second on a world wide basis we need to cause the custom manufacture and retrofit [ install a new piece of equipment on an existing or older piece of equipment ] of devices for the many smoke stacks and exhausts in existence.

Climate Cleanup (CC) is now in this second stage of development - market penetration and delivery by building a global network of like-minded colleagues.

How much will it cost?
"Halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would cost 45 trillion dollars" - IEA.

In relation to CC's Black Box Device the prototype devices for a small car's exhaust pipe cost about Euro 200. The cost of larger scale devices will depend on the specific custom requirements of existing smoke stack exhaust owner's assets.

CC offers access to the technology by way of Licensing the Intellectual Property (IP) and know-how.

What options do we have?
Climate Cleanup (CC) offers access to a workable CO2 reduction technology.

What policies do we need?
The United Nations, Regional Forums ( EU, APEC ) and National Governments world wide are all introducing an ever increasing range of strict environmental laws. All non-government organizations (NGO), corporations and citizens must find a way to comply with these laws in the global business environment or risk exclusion.

It has become a matter of business survival to obtain and use CO2 reduction technology and other methods to lower one's Carbon Footprint.

Peter Griffiths
Founder
http://climatecleanup.com

Posted by: Peter Griffiths | Jul 7, 2008 7:45:04 AM