IEA Outlines Scenarios for Global CO2 Reduction by 2050; Transportation Emissions Need to Be Cut Eightfold
09 June 2008
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 CO2 emissions 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 CO2 or 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
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.
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.
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 2nd 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
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 | 09 June 2008 at 12:26 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 | 09 June 2008 at 01:37 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: | 09 June 2008 at 02:42 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 | 09 June 2008 at 03:00 PM
Fool cell!
Posted by: predictable sheep | 09 June 2008 at 03:06 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: | 09 June 2008 at 03:07 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 . | 09 June 2008 at 03:12 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 | 09 June 2008 at 03:13 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 | 09 June 2008 at 03:26 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 | 09 June 2008 at 03:57 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 | 09 June 2008 at 04:08 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 | 09 June 2008 at 04:23 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 | 09 June 2008 at 04:50 PM
"As for your birthright ... you ran out of your inheritance when US lower 48 oil production peaked in 1970."
LOL!
Posted by: marcus | 09 June 2008 at 05:06 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 . | 09 June 2008 at 05:19 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 | 09 June 2008 at 05:41 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 | 09 June 2008 at 06:15 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 | 09 June 2008 at 06:26 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 | 09 June 2008 at 06:30 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 | 09 June 2008 at 08:39 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 | 09 June 2008 at 08:43 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 | 09 June 2008 at 09:23 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 | 09 June 2008 at 09:33 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 | 09 June 2008 at 09:44 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: | 10 June 2008 at 01:10 AM