Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNo country on Earth is taking the 2 degree climate target seriously
http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuelsAfter that, emissions have to go negative. Humanity has to start burying a lot more carbon than it throws up into the atmosphere. There are several ways to sequester greenhouse gases, from reforestation to soil enrichment to cow backpacks, but the backbone of the envisioned negative emissions is BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration.
BECCS raising, harvesting, and burning biomass for energy, while capturing and burying the carbon emissions is unproven at scale. Thus far, most demonstration plants of any size attaching CCS to fossil fuel facilities have been over-budget disasters. What if we cant rely on it? What if it never pans out?
"If we want to avoid depending on unproven technology becoming available," the authors say, "emissions would need to be reduced even more rapidly."
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That will fix it, shurely?
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)... kill off >95% of the people.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)...intellectually bankrupt replies.
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)mackdaddy
(1,528 posts)I keep seeing this 2050 quote for 1.5oC. We have been running over 1.2C THIS year 2016! If we did not burn another lump of coal we would go over 2C with what CO2 is and will be in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
A hydrogen economy, yea, that's the ticket.....
kristopher
(29,798 posts)July 11, 2008 by Lisa Zyga
(PhysOrg.com) -- .... Argentina has more than 55 million cows, making it a leading producer of beef. In the study, the scientists were surprised to discover that a standard 550-kg cow produces between 800 to 1,000 liters of emissions, including methane, each day.
...
"When we got the first results, we were surprised," said Guillermo Berra, a researcher at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology in Argentina. "Thirty percent of Argentina´s (total greenhouse) emissions could be generated by cattle."
In their study, the researchers attached balloon-like plastic packs to the backs of at least 10 cows. A tube running to the animals´ stomachs collected the gas inside the backpacks, which were then hung from the roof of the corral for analysis.
The Argentine researchers say that the slow digestive system of the cows causes them to produce these large amounts of methane. Now, the scientists are performing trials of new diets designed to improve the cows´ digestion and reduce global warming. By feeding cows clover and alfalfa instead of grain, "you can reduce methane emissions by 25 percent," according to Silvia Valtorta of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations....
http://phys.org/news/2008-07-cow-backpacks-methane-gas.html
NickB79
(19,271 posts)And in many portions of the world, clover and alfalfa farming comes with it's own limitations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/15/almonds-california-drought_n_7073868.html
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Your unnecessary sarcasm aside, that was sort of the point.....
But, since we're on the topic, the OP is bullshit. There is a certain mindset that dedicates itself to gaining feelings of worth by denigrating those who are on the front lines working to make needed change happen. The type of person who acts that way - the type of person that wrote the OP article - are really just worthless assholes who are more of a hinderance than anything else. They certainly aren't advancing the cause they profess to support one iota.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I think the author is completely correct. As far as I can tell there is no action that can be taken that is commensurate with the scale and timeframe of the problem, i.e. going from 40 gigatonnes of CO2 to 0 within 35 years.
But then, nobody takes worthless assholes like me seriously either. They prefer just to keep nibbling around the edges of the problem and congratulating themselves on not being obstructionist. The contempt is entirely mutual.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)in truth, their take on an issue is most often moronic. That's why they're in the peanut gallery instead of on the field taking action.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)nt
kristopher
(29,798 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)FBaggins
(26,760 posts)Or is it their mere existence that is the problem?
Note in advance... it's a cop out to say that it's their bad choices... but that the bad choice is their existence.
pscot
(21,024 posts)it's a biological imperative. Individuals may not reproduce, but in the aggregate, we no more have a 'choice' than rabbits. The problem is our raw numbers. We've exceeded the carrying capacity of our planet.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)But here we are. Since we can't kill people, and we can't give everyone a first-world lifestyle, and we can't convince the first-world to adopt third-world lifestyles for the good of other species (or even for the sake of future generations of our own species) we're pretty much hooped.
So we keep nibbling at the edges of the problem and calling it progress. But of course it's not progress. It's camouflaged failure with built-in plausible deniability and a healthy shot of cognitive dissonance. And of course lots of denialism of various flavors to try and keep ourselves sane in the process.