Exxon rep: CO2 output to rise 50 percent by 2020

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/20/climate.gas.reut/index.html

HOUSTON, Texas (Reuters) -- Worldwide annual emissions of carbon dioxide, considered a culprit in global warming, are expected to increase by 3.5 billion tons, or 50 percent, by the year 2020, an executive for ExxonMobil Corp said.


Looks like those voluntary limits are working out pretty good, just like the voluntary standards for power line maintenance have prevented any widespread blackouts.....

Guess our species doesn't plan to be around much longer (and we'll take the rest along with us).

We'll take most of the species with us but as with previous mass extinctions the remaining species will evolve to survive in the new environment and fill the empty niches. A few hundred million years from now intelligent beings descended from cockroaches will be having academic debates on what killed off all the mammals.

20 lbs of CO2 for every gallon of gas...

show me the data. that's too much to believe...

"With the assumption that 1 gallon of gasoline (roughly 6 lbs) burns completely, and thereby produces approximately 1 molecule CO2 for every atom of carbon, AND assuming that gasoline is a PURE hydrocarbon compound, with very few double bonds between carbon atoms, the mass of gasoline will be approximately 14 grams for every 12 grams of carbon. Ideal gasoline for '100 octane' measurements is 1,1, dimethyl-hexane, which has 8 carbons, and 18 hydrogens, which is very very close to this ratio. Adding oxygenate may alter this slightly, but in a direction that REDUCES the result of the calculation.

SO, for 1 gallon of gasoline:
1 gallon gasoline
* ~6 lbs per gallon
* 12 g Carbon / 14 g gasoline (grams cancel out)
* 44 g CO2 / 12 g Carbon (grams cancel out again)
= ~19 lbs CO2 per gallon of gasoline."

http://www.mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html

I'm not entirely sure the figures check out but an initial perusal doesn't see any real fudging. I'd need to look up some more data to check it thoroughly.

side of less CO2, yet their figures indicate the same kind of value. that's just a completely staggering figure.

The oxygen doesn't come from the gas itself, but from combustion.
"Burning" anything, including gas, is the process of combining it exothermically with oxygen.

elemental carbon has an atomic weight of 12 AMU, elemental oxygen has an atomic weight of 16 AMU. You need 2 oxygen atoms for the CO2 molecule, which has a weight of 44 AMU. Assuming 100% conversion of gas C to emitted CO2 in the combustion process, the CO2 will weigh about 44/12 as much as the initial carbon input. That's a bit less than 4. Of course there are other things in the gas that aren't carbon, in this example its 18 H (AMU 1) per 8 C, so somewhat more than 4/5 of the weight is carbon. Starting with 6lb (1 gallon) of gas, about 5lb are carbon. Multiply it by 4 to get the approximate weight in CO2 emissions. ~5lbs * 4 = ~20lbs.

Note that due to the initial conversion estimate of 6lbs/gal, honest chemists have to round 19lbs up to 20lbs (1 significant digit). The site can spin that however they like, but those are the rules.

We had a discussion about it in Chem class earlier this week, and I was shocked! In fact. I'm still stunned. Talk about guilt! I don't want to go to the gas station today...

important issue with little interest (end of us is not nearly as exciting as Michael Jackson!)

We're close to the point of "peak oil", and we may be a little bit beyond it. It means that from here on in, it will become increasingly expensive to suck the stuff out of the ground.

Which also means that the price of oil will start rising faster, and eventually skyrocket when production cost approaches its own market value.

Which also means that our consumption of petroleum is going to be reduced in a big hurry.

We'll become much more environmentally friendly. And live with much less electricity, no cars, and back-breaking agricultural jobs.

And to think, we've known about this since the late 1950s.

--bkl

Soon I will have waterfront property.:crazy:

It doesn't make any difference where the additional CO2 comes from in terms of effects, but it DOES make a difference in terms of remedies. India and China are industrializing rapidly. They will continue to do so. They burn mostly coal. Their alternative is nuclear power.

That's the justice of it all!

Every day, all over the country and a good portion of the rest of Mother Earth, artificial clouds are being generated by jet aircraft. No, they are not contrails. Contrails dissipate. These things linger. And they spread laterally until the sky is full of fake clouds composed of God(dess)-Knows-What, although aluminum and barium have been demonstrated to be components.

And why is this being done? Well, your Government says there's nothing to worry about; these are simply "persistent contrails."

There is one school of thought which holds that the fake clouds are being generated to reflect sunlight and thus minimize (wait for it) Global Warming. But wait. According to the Repugs who control every facet of our Government, Global Warming does not exist.

So we are left to our own imaginations, are we not? Meanwhile, the jets fly on, night and day. How much is it costing to run these missions around the clock? What's really in those trails? Who approved this? Where are the planes based and who's flying them?

Far-fetched? No more so than having the Supreme Court elect the president. And just three years ago, we would have all sworn that could never happen, either.

:freak:
dbt

Here's a site linked from those wacky folks over at The Jeff Rense program...

I don't know what they are,or what they're for, but during the summer here in L.A., they were ALL over the place! They really creep me out.... For your perusal...
http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm

is the effect of disruption of air that is super saturated.
The addition of energy from the contrail causes a sudden shift of state as the vapor condenses like super cooled water freezing when it hits the ground. Note that you see this more at evening, when atmospheric mixing is greatest.

As to it being used to effect the albedo of the planet, I dont see that as a useful strategy (how much, how often... it relies on many factors.)