• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Uncategorized

Emission Impossible

March 30, 2008 By Paul

Governments around the world are working towards a commitment to deep cuts in CO2 emissions by 2050, or earlier, in the apparent belief that cuts are achievable, affordable, politically acceptable, and will have a measurable influence on climate change. Few would argue against the desirability of developing new, secure energy sources in order to reduce and eventually eliminate our dependence on so called fossil fuels. However, there seems to be no clear strategy for achieving CO2 emissions cuts of up to 80 per cent.

I do not intend to discuss the science of climate change in this article, which pulls together some of my previous posts. Instead I will try to demonstrate the huge problems that make current government climate policies ’emission impossible.’

First, below I have listed the top 25 world CO2 emitters as of 2004 ( A full list is available by following the link):

Ranking of the world’s countries by 2004 total CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring. Emissions (CO2_TOT) are expressed in thousand metric tons of carbon (not CO2). Source: Gregg Marland, Tom Boden, and Bob Andres. Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

RANK/NATION/CO2_TOT

1/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/1650020
2/CHINA(MAINLAND)/1366554
3/RUSSIAN FEDERATION/415951
4/INDIA/366301
5/JAPAN/343117
6/GERMANY/220596
7/CANADA/174401
8/UNITED KINGDOM/160179
9/REPUBLIC OF KOREA /127007
10/ITALY(INCLUDING SAN MARINO)/122726
11/MEXICO/119473
12/SOUTH AFRICA/119203
13/ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN/118259
14/INDONESIA/103170
15/FRANCE(INCLUDING MONACO)/101927
16/BRAZIL/90499
17/SPAIN/90145
18/UKRAINE/90020
19/AUSTRALIA/89125
20/SAUDI ARABIA/84116
21/POLAND /83801
22/THAILAND/73121
23/TAIWAN/65807
24/TURKEY/61677
25/KAZAKHSTAN/54627

China’s rapidly growing emissions are obviously an obstacle to achieving any meaningful global CO2 emissions reductions, as demonstrated below:

Forecasting the Path of China’s CO2 Emissions Using Province Level Information

Our results suggest that the anticipated path of China’s Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions has dramatically increased over the last five years. The magnitude of the projected increase in Chinese emissions out to 2015 is several times larger than reductions embodied in the Kyoto Protocol. Our estimates are based on a unique provincial level panel data set from the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency. This dataset contains considerably more information relevant to the path of likely Chinese greenhouse gas emissions than national level time series models currently in use. Model selection criteria clearly reject the popular static environmental Kuznets curve specification in favor of a class of dynamic models with spatial dependence.

Maximilian Auffhammer¤
University of California, Berkeley

Richard T. Carson
University of California, San Diego

2007

China's Growing Emissions.png

China Tops World in CO2 Emissions

By AUDRA ANG, The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 20, 2007; 10:53 PM

BEIJING — China has overtaken the United States as the world’s top producer of carbon dioxide emissions – the biggest man-made contributor to global warming – based on the latest widely accepted energy consumption data, a Dutch research group says.

According to a report released Tuesday by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China overtook the U.S. in emissions of CO2 by about 7.5 percent in 2006. While China was 2 percent below the United States in 2005, voracious coal consumption and increased cement production caused the numbers to rise rapidly, the group said.

Just two countries, Somalia and Haiti, are currently living a lifestyle compatible with an 80% reduction in per capita CO2 emissions:

2 countries.png

(See Prometheus: ‘China’s growing emissions’)

Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner tried to warn against further Kyoto style policies prior to the Bali Conference in an article published in the journal Nature:

Time to ditch Kyoto

by Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner, Nature Vol 449 25 October 2007

The Kyoto Protocol is a symbolically important expression of governments’ concern about climate change. But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, it has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth. And it pays no more than token attention to the needs of societies to adapt to existing climate change.

The impending United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Bali in December — to decide international policy after 2012 — needs to radically rethink climate policy.

Prins and Rayner also released a fuller pdf version of their analysis, pointing out that, in their opinion, there is no ‘silver bullet’ answer and a ‘silver buckshot’ approach should be used instead, plus adaptation is being neglected in favour of mitigation:

The Wrong Trousers: Radically Rethinking Climate Policy

Gwyn Prins: Professor and Director of the Mackinder Centre for the Study of Long Wave Events at the London School of Economics.

Steve Rayner: Professor and Director of the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization at the University of Oxford.

Time to Swap Trousers?

Now is the moment to swap trousers. If the Bali Conference can become the occasion when the principles of an oblique and clumsy approach supplant the obsolescent approach which gave us the Kyoto Protocol that has dominated climate policy so fruitlessly for the past fifteen years, we believe that there are then strong grounds for hope. That hope is of two sorts. The first is hope that the Prometheus of humanity’s ingenuity and intellectual energy can be swiftly unbound from the rock of Kyoto to begin to break the link between the fossil-fuel energy nexus and world-wide wealth creation, which alone can restore harmony between the twin goals of climate security and human development. The second hope is that we may avoid the otherwise looming possibility of a collapse of public support for any forms of action on climate policy when the current spinning of the failure of Kyoto as success fractures irrevocably before the eyes of the concerned public. So this essay has been a conscious contribution to a controlled collapse of expectation, since the other alternative is to let events take their course, as bankers did in the Great Crash of 1929. Passivity before such a prospect is neither courageous nor wise.

The Right Trousers?

….climate change is not a discrete problem amenable to any single shot solution, be it Kyoto or any other. Climate change is the result of a particular development path and its globally interlaced supply system of fossil energy. No single intervention can change such a complex nexus (…the attempt to do so has produced unintended and unwelcome effects). There is no simple silver bullet.

Prins & Rayner suggest Seven Basic Principles:

1. Use ‘silver buckshot.’ This would mean adopting a wide variety of climate policies—silver buckshot—and non-climate policies with climate effects. Impossible to predict in advance which of these approaches might stimulate the necessary fundamental change.
2. Abandon universalism; focus on the 20 countries that account for 80% of the world’s emissions
3. Devise trading schemes from the bottom up; allowing governments unrestricted powers to allocate allowances instead of auctioning a limited supply, leads to a collapse in the price
4. Deal with problems at the lowest possible levels of decision-making; at local rather than national level
5.Invest in technology R&D; new energy technologies – put investment on a ‘war footing’
6.Increase spending on adaptation;
7.Understand that successful climate policy does not necessarily focus instrumentally on the climate.

However, according to computer modelled ‘consensus science,’ the situation is even worse and even an 80 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions is nowhere near enough:

Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions

H. Damon Matthews
Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Ken Caldeira
Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, California, USA

Abstract
Current international climate mitigation efforts aim to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, human-induced climate warming will continue for many centuries, even after atmospheric CO2 levels are stabilized. In this paper, we assess the CO2 emissions requirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries, using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity. We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence of additional emissions. We then show that to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future carbon emissions. Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388, 2008

Received 17 October 2007; accepted 11 January 2008; published 27 February 2008.
Keywords: carbon dioxide emissions; climate change; climate stabilization.

“In the absence of human intervention to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere [e.g., Keith et al., 2006], each unit of CO2 emissions must be viewed as leading to quantifiable and essentially permanent climate change on centennial timescales. We emphasize that a stable global climate is not synonymous with stable radiative forcing, but rather requires decreasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. We have shown here that stable global temperatures within the next several centuries can be achieved if CO2 emissions are reduced to nearly zero. This means that avoiding future human-induced climate warming may require policies that seek not only to decrease CO2 emissions, but to eliminate them entirely.”

Meeting follows meeting, as a global emission reduction deal is sought. Governments don’t seem to have noticed yet that, according to Matthews and Caldiera, anything less than near-zero emissions deal very soon would be pointless. Air-capture rather than emissions reductions could be the only solution to the computer modelled phantom mence of CO2 driven climate change. Emission impossible indeed.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Happy Birthday Cheeta

March 30, 2008 By jennifer

“It is 76 years since Cheeta the chimp was plucked from the African jungle to become a Hollywood star in the Tarzan movies. Yet incredibly, he is still going strong.

“The oldest known living chimpanzee enjoys a leisurely retirement in California, where he enjoys painting, piano and strolling in the sunshine…

Read more here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=548332&in_page_id=1773

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Carbon Offsets to Expand National Parks or Selling Ice to Eskimos

March 29, 2008 By neil

Well-watered Ck.jpg
In the cross-hairs of Queensland Government Acquisition?

“The Queensland Government will channel more than $10 million a year into a new ‘Eco Fund’ to expand the state’s National Parks.”

So said the Hon. Premier, Anna Bligh and Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, the Hon. Andrew McNamara, in a joint statement last Friday.

“… we’re going to expand our National Parks by 50% … reaching a target of 12 million hectares by 2020 …”

Developers and other entities will pay for this doubling of protected area, by offsetting their environmental impacts and greenhouse emissions. The Eco Fund will provide a facility for these offset payments to be retained within Queensland and re-invested into conservation land acquisition, giving the illusion of ecological neutrality or better.

However, there are some glaring problems with the concept. First of all, protected area management is very inefficient and a major contributor to emissions in its own right, particularly when burning.

In 1999, it was revealed that in the six years preceding the ‘LGAQ Public inquiry into the Management of National Parks’ Queensland’s protected area estate had doubled whilst its budgetary allocation had increased by only 9% . The inquiry found that QPWS was neither staffed nor resourced to manage its reserves, which were being increasingly overrun with feral weeds and animals. Doubling the estate, yet again, would surely double these identified inefficiencies.

The LGAQ Inquiry also revealed the convention that lands acquired for addition to protected area estate, invariably had existing conservation values. In effect, the only real change was the name on the land title. Whilst there was usually an acquisition cost, it could hardly be described as a carbon offset, when nothing had been done to change the ecological nature of the environment.

By contrast, if productive land were to be acquired and re-vegetated for inclusion into the protected area, then the public would be able to see the ecological gain and know that it had paid for the change of land-use, including compensation and loss of income-earning capacity.

Then there are the recreational and tourism entitlements of the public-at-large, with all known and associated impacts and emissions. The Queensland government currently opposes cost-recovery through user-fees on National Parks, so all costs associated with management and impact mitigation are met by the taxpayer. This further disadvantages conservation management on private lands, through the exclusionary provisions of subsidisation on a tenure-exclusive basis.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

The Global Warming Challenge: Scott Armstrong Calling Al Gore

March 28, 2008 By jennifer

Professor Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School of Business at the Univ. of Pennsyvania, also associated with the Heartland Institute, is internationally known for his pioneering work on forecasting methods. Recently, he challenged former Vice-President Al Gore regarding Global Climate Modeling – and today sent off another letter:

March 28, 2008
Honorable Albert Gore
2100 West End Avenue,
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203
Fax 615 327-1323

Dear Mr. Gore,

The extended deadline for the Global Warming Challenge has passed and, despite the fact that I have responded to all of your concerns to date regarding the challenge, you have not been willing to engage in a scientific test of your forecasts of dangerous global warming.

Despite our literature searches and our appeals both on the Internet and in our published paper on climate change, my colleague and I have been unable to find a single scientific forecast to support global warming. If you are aware of such a study, I appeal to you directly to reveal it to the scientific community so that it can be subject to peer review and so the public can see the scientific basis for your claims.

In addition we need to continue scientific studies. Thus, I pose this question:
“When and under what conditions would you be willing to engage in a scientific test of your global warming forecasts?”

I look forward to your responses. By your own words, the global warming issue remains an important one for the future of the world. Given the enormous expenditures on this issue, I hope that as a concerned and influential citizen, you will take an active role in encouraging the application of science to this issue.

Sincerely,
J. Scott Armstrong

—————
A history of the Global Warning Challenge is provided at http://theclimatebet.com. It includes all correspondence between Scott Armstrong and Al Gore. The site will post all papers that purport to provide scientific forecasts of global warming. The papers must provide full disclosure on how the forecasts were made, as full disclosure is one of the basic principles of science.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Won’t Meet Emissions Targets, Unless

March 28, 2008 By jennifer

With present policies Australia has no chance of reducing our C02 emissions by anywhere near 80 per cent by the year 2050. Before I explain why, I should say that I am a greenhouse sceptic taking the view that it is very unlikely that CO2 is having a major effect on changing climate. However, due to the extreme consequences of a potential large rise in temperature, I believe it is prudent to take reasonable and sensible measures to reduce C02 emissions.

Australia has got its head in the sand on two major issues that make the task of meeting our commitments virtually impossible. These are (a) we have a rapidly growing population and (b) we have no technology at hand today to achieve the targets except nuclear power which the government refuses to consider.

Read the complete article by Peter Ridd here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7158&page=1

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Energy & Nuclear

Typo in 2002 Australian Report Responsible for Plastic Bag Mythology

March 28, 2008 By Paul

The plastic bag is the latest useful item to fall victim to a factually challenged campaign aimed at achieving a world-wide ban in the false name of being ‘green’ or ‘saving the planet.’ Australia has to take much of the blame for this, due to a 2002 report misinterpreting the original 1987 Canadian Study in Newfoundland claiming that 100,000 marine mammals and birds were killed by ‘plastic debris.’ In a 2002 report commissioned by the Australian Government into the environmental effects of plastic bags, ‘plastic debris’ became ‘plastic bags.’ The report became known as the Nolan-ITU report. In 2006 the report was updated. The same sentence was repeated but ‘bags’ was changed back to ‘debris’ with an explanatory note stating that the original article actually referred to ‘fishing nets.’ The damage to the reputation of the plastic bag was already done.

Read the excellent 8th March Times article, ‘Series of blunders turned the plastic bag into global villain’ online

or see a pdf version here.

Plastic Bags.jpg

The carrier bag industry is attempting to fight back and swim against the tide using the Carrier Bag Consortium website:

The following myth-busters are copied from ‘Useful Soundbites for the Media:’

SPEAK THE SCIENCE
BIN THE SPIN

1: OFFICIAL VIEWS

• A levy on plastic bags in Ireland only made matters worse… people underestimate how many plastic bags are used to put out recycling or are substituted for plastic bin bags. “We have got to remember that taxes and levies can have perverse effects – such as making people use more plastic not less” … Liz Goodwin, Chief Executive WRAP (Government’s Waste Resources Action Programme) The Daily Telegraph 28 Sept 2007

• “This (voluntary) agreement is working – with retailers offering shoppers reusable bags-for-life. We don’t think a ban or levy is the right way to go. In Ireland, people just bought more bin liners to replace free carrier bags, so the volume of waste stayed the same.” … DEFRA, The Guardian, 3 October 2007

• “But until supermarkets reduce the energy used in their stores, minimise food miles and treat farmers better, saving a few plastic bags is just window dressing.”…Tony Juniper, Friends of the Earth, Daily Mail, 28 January 2008

• “There have been unforeseen consequences in the Irish Experience … increase in the use of paper bags which are actually worse for the environment …” … Ben Bradshaw, UK Environment Minister, 4 August 2006

• “A number of unintended consequences appear likely to be connected with the proposed levy … the net environmental impact is an issue of considerable dispute … the Committee therefore recommends that Parliament does not agree to … the Bill” … Unanimous Conclusion (including the Green party) of the Scottish Parliament, Environment and Rural Development Committee, after two years of investigations, 2006

• “0.2% of the average household dustbin is plastic carrier bags … hence a tax on plastic carrier bags alone would be unlikely to have any significant impact on volumes of waste” (Plastic Bag Tax Assessment, HM Treasury, December 2002)

• Because so many plastic bags are re-used for domestic waste disposal, the following increase in bin liners and refuse sacks occurred after the tax in Ireland:
o Tesco – 77% increase in pedal bin liner sales
o SuperQuinn – 84% increase in nappy disposable bag sales
o SuperValue/Centra – 75% increase in swing bin liner sales
Evidence to Scottish Parliament, Environment and Rural Development Committee Hearings 2005

• The use of plastic bags in Ireland (including substitute bin liners) analysed through HM Customs figures shows the amount of plastic bags imported into Ireland has actually gone up after their bag tax from 29,846 tonnes in 2001 to 31,649 tonnes in 2006… HM Customs statistics (analysed by Mike Kidwell Associates/PAFA 2007)

• “They represent a fraction of 1%* of waste going to landfill. Retailers of all types are well on the way to reducing the environmental impacts of bags by 25%. They are doing that with the cooperation of customers by rewarding re-use, giving away sturdier bags-for-life, enabling and encouraging recycling and reducing the amount of plastic in bags” Kevin Hawkins, Director General, British Retail Consortium, 13 July 2007

• *The fraction of landfill represented by plastic shopping bags is 0.05%. This is based on domestic waste being 17% of landfill and plastic bags being 0.2% of the average dustbin. Packaging and Films Association 2007.

• 59% of people re-use ALL their lightweight plastic bags and a FURTHER 16% say they re-use MOST of them. … WRAP Survey 2005

2: THE SCIENCE

• The manufacture of plastic bags uses one third of the energy, results in half the pollution and one eighth of the raw material requirement of paper bag production (Winnipeg University Studies)

• Paper bags weigh 6 times more than plastic on our roads and are 10 times the volume in storage. Switching to paper as result of plastic bag bans or taxes will put an extra 32,000 lorries on London’s roads. Extrapolated by CBC from Simpac Ltd Studies presented to Scottish Parliament ERDC Hearings, 2006

• The average round trip to the supermarket is 12 miles, the petrol equivalent of 210 plastic bags (typically one year’s usage of bags per person in the UK) … Dr Gerard McCrum, Oxford, The Daily Telegraph 24 July 2007

• “(plastic bags) contribution to climate change is miniscule. The average Brit uses 134 bags a year, resulting in just (2.6) kilos of the typical 11 tonnes of carbon dioxide he or she will emit in a year. That is one five thousandth of their overall climate impact.” George Marshall, The Guardian, Thursday September 13 2007

• In Scotland alone, taxing plastic carrier bags would have created an EXTRA 13,500 tonnes of (largely paper) waste going to landfill. (This would mean an EXTRA 150,000 tonnes of waste created in the UK) Extrapolated from Scottish Executive Impact Assessment Studies 2005

• Taxing plastic bags will send more paper to landfill where it will degrade to give off greenhouse gases in direct contravention of the EU Landfill Directive. Plastic remains inert and will not give off CO2 or Methane in landfill. Packaging and Films Association 2002.

• Plastic has a higher calorific value than any other element of waste. The energy released in clean-burn municipal incineration by a single carrier bag keeps a 60 watt light bulb burning for one hour. APME/Plastics Europe 2006

• No other shopping container can carry 2,500 times its own weight and stay strong when wet. CBC 2001

• A typical plastic carrier bag uses 70% less plastic today than 20 years ago. No other industry has a better track record in material reduction. Packaging and Films Association 2003

• Plastic bags do not waste oil, they are derived mainly from oil refining by-products (naptha, ethylene, etc) which would otherwise be flared off. So plastic bags are an excellent use of otherwise waste products. All plastic packaging of all types uses no more than 2% of total oil extraction compared with 29% for transport and 35% for heating/industry. Plastics Europe 2007

3: THE RETAIL EFFECT

• The Irish tax has cost small to medium retailers an estimated €24.3m (after the first year of operation) mostly as a result of theft plus additional theft of €10m in “push out” thefts (where unbagged and unpaid for goods are wheeled through the doors due to absence of carrier bags as evidence of purchase) (Note: This is more than the income “generated for the good of the environment” and includes the theft of trolleys and baskets) … RGDTA – Irish Grocers Association and Irish Trade Journal “Shelf Life” estimates 2003,

• A 10p tax per carrier bag represents a tax level of 1400% on cost price. If applied equally across popular goods, a can of Coke would cost £8 and a packet of crisps £5. Simpac Ltd Study for CBC 2005

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Economics

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 68
  • Go to page 69
  • Go to page 70
  • Go to page 71
  • Go to page 72
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 334
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

November 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
« Jan    

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital