Global Warming is not the problem, we are

[EdEarl]

I think it is time to act, we have been thinking about global warming long enough.

[Eddie @ 10kOxygen]

We are dealing with economic and political entities that regard the current research and theory indicated ascription of causation as a threat to their wealth and power.

 

Their responses to such threats are among our main obstacles to using technology to abate the effects of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.

 

 

About this reality some observations:

 

Even the wealthiest people need to breathe, have family and theoretically is a rational being capable of understanding the involved risks on this subject so the obstacle could be handled. Today wealth normally depends on customers, and then we are reaching an analysis about how capitalism sustains itself. A more informed people should take care about their life expectancy in this amazing planet, but everybody must put effort to change inertial actions.

 

Inside that billion vehicles are people who could be using a bike.

[EdEarl]

 

Inside that billion vehicles are people who could be using a bike.

There are additional ways to save energy.

 

Energy use in the USA is divided as shown in the following diagram, from Wikipedia.

However, the 41% that generates Electric Power is distributed and used by Transportation, Industrial, Residential & Commercial sectors. This pattern is shown in the following line of a chart from Wikipedia:

 

USA

Industry: 24.0%

Transport: 0.2%

Commercial/Public: 35.0%

Residential: 36.2%

 

By combining the two we get the following useages:

Industry = 24.0%*41% + 20% = 29.8%

Transportation = 00.2%*41% + 28% = 28.0%

Commercial & Residential= 71.2%*41% + 11/% = 40.2%

98.0%

Other 2%

 

Transportation is less than 1/3 of total energy use. Therefore, we should also focus on making our homes, businesses, and industry more energy efficient. The commercial and residential sector can save lots of energy by making buildings more energy efficient. As Earthship Homes, comfortable homes can be made off-grid; unfortunately, building codes prevent Earthship homes from being built in many places, and often discourage off-grid homes of any type construction. Much can be done to increase our energy efficiency without suffering any. We do need to motivate city planners and politicians to change building codes, among other things.

 

Finally, many people do not live close enough to work to ride a bike. However, the Elio will provide comfortable transportation at 84 mpg, air conditioning, and safety, for a sale price that is supposed to be $6,800.

.

[Eddie @ 10kOxygen]

The other day we published an article about how many human civilizations could be powered by the Sun using watts per second, and it was in the order of billions. This energy is now simply wasted in exchange for air contamination. In general, there are more people that can use bike or other transportation methods without producing pollution like it's happening on Netherlands, but the point was that everybody is not completely innocent on the matter.

 

That vehicle you mention could be comfortable or faster in some situations, but not equally healthy as making sport and sleeping well.

[swansont]

The other day we published an article about how many human civilizations could be powered by the Sun using watts per second

 

Watts per second? Watts is power, which is energy per unit time. Watts per second would be a rate of change of energy, i.e. like an acceleration.

[Eddie @ 10kOxygen]

1 watt is defined as a 1 joule per second, that was the idea. The Sun produces 384 yotta watts, and any measure of energy should account time.

 

Power = energy / time

 

1 Watt = 1 Joule / sec

[swansont]

1 watt is defined as a 1 joule per second, that was the idea. The Sun produces 384 yotta watts, and any measure of energy should account time.

 

Power = energy / time

 

1 Watt = 1 Joule / sec

 

Right. So your measure of energy will be in Joules, or possibly Watt-hours. Not Watts per hour. (it's a common mistake, but incorrect units tend to be annoying to physics teachers and former physics teachers)

[Eddie @ 10kOxygen]

For passing an exam we could stay with joules / second or simply watts, not watt-hours in this case. Anyway thanks for the correction!

[Eddie @ 10kOxygen]

Ok ... but talking about global warming, carbon dioxide levels and such things, 384 yotta watts are enough energy to turn on a light bulb!

The Sun is extremely powerful and it seems the best way to go due to being clean, free and produced externally, so it doesn't consume other finite resources.

The related technology in solar energy reception is increasing each year, and a lot of population is now accustomed to it so they are helping.

[EdEarl]

 

Ok ... but talking about global warming, carbon dioxide levels and such things, 384 yotta watts are enough energy to turn on a light bulb!

The Sun is extremely powerful and it seems the best way to go due to being clean, free and produced externally, so it doesn't consume other finite resources.

The related technology in solar energy reception is increasing each year, and a lot of population is now accustomed to it so they are helping.

 

Except for geothermal, nuclear, and a few chemical sources of energy, AFAIK the other sources of energy are solar. Wind is air moved by solar energy. Dams store water that is evaporated by the Sun and falls as rain to be used to generate electricity. Oil, gas and coal are the remains of plants that absorbed solar energy to make plants that the Earth processed into oil; perhaps some of the energy in oil, gas and coal can be attributed to geothermal. Etc.

 

I suppose you are referring to solar PV and solar thermal uses of solar power. The trend is toward greater use of solar PV. Unfortunately, solar thermal for heating water and buildings is underutilized and often forgotten; although, it is the simplest and least expensive method of heating water and buildings.

[Eddie @ 10kOxygen]

There was a nice idea about heating water with molten salt for still producing electricity at night in absence of sunlight. Since 2011 with great results!

[ralfy]

The IEA 2010 report gives scenarios for dealing with peak oil and global warming. It argues that with maximum production of all oil and gas resources worldwide we will increase production by only 9 pct during the next two decades. This will not meet an increase in demand, which has gone up around 2 pct a year the past three decades.

 

Thus, in order to deal with peak oil and global warming, governments and businesses worldwide will have to cooperate and coordinate heavily, with government intervention making sure that oil companies maximize production even at lower profits and, business replace more than half of energy increase with renewable energy in order to limit CO2 emissions as well.

 

Why will this be a difficult task? Because for the past six decades governments and businesses have hardly cooperated in such matters. Instead, they sought to maximize economic power or profits and even used military forces to control resources, etc., leading to hundreds of millions dead. During the past decade, governments that should have prepared for peak oil did nothing, and even today countries have hardly agreed on cutting down on CO2 emissions and focusing heavily on renewable energy.

 

Meanwhile, the global middle class has grown significantly, with more demand for oil and various resources worldwide.

[Eddie @ 10kOxygen]

A nightmare for who lives here, that's true, but let's go to the optimistic side. Renewable energy is constantly increasing, and in any moment could be developed a new technology with more energy density than gasoline. After a while cheap EV cars with considerable mile range, clean, comparable, easy to market and sell.

 

Why not a new revolution in clean energy harvesting, while the high prices of oil almost force to change ... the industry should also go to the non expensive alternatives.

 

Wealth and power in this situation would look toward other extraction locations and not for those that lead to air contamination or only found in specific locations. A bit of action and you could live in a clean, stable environment in not so much time.

[Tridimity]

Recently read Danny Dorling's '10 Billion', in which he essentially argues that - contrary to the scaremongering of apocalyptist types - global human population will probably peak at (at most) 10 billion by 2100. Fertility rates in most Western countries have actually been falling in the past couple of decades, although there are blips such as the current bucking of the trend in the UK, which is thought to be due to the latency associated with mothers giving birth on average at a later stage in life when compared with previous generations - while longevity is increasing. He also argues that, rather than worrying too much about population levels per se, what is really critical to survival of our species (and that of others) is the way in which we all live. A world in which there are 10 billion people engaging in environmentally-friendly lifestyles may well be more sustainable than a world in which there are 7 billion people engaging in wasteful lifestyles that fuel climate change. The problem is not that Earth lacks sufficient resources to sustain 10 billion people - rather, the problem is that the available resources are not being distributed in an intelligent fashion. As such, the highest birth rates continue to be found in those less economically developed countries (LEDCs) which experience high infant mortality. The association between economically-related infant mortality rates and birth rates is exemplified by women who migrate from LEDCs to MEDCs and adopt the birth rate of the new country. We can therefore reasonably expect that a fairer global distribution of resources would be paralleled with a commensurate stabilisation of population levels. No longer can we treat socioeconomics and climate change as two independent variables. What we need is a smart world - a world of people connected by their fundamental humanity - with sophisticated communication systems, in which countries maintain their national identity without forsaking the greater picture.

[EdEarl]

From: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=628324697199206&set=a.465299380168406.106666.465298390168505&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

[CharonY]

The peak is pretty much certain at between 9-10 billion as the population of 15 and below has been pretty stable. So there will be a final increase due to these (i.e. they grow up and the lower age bracket will be by a fresh batch of 2 billion children) and then the population will either stay at that level or potentially decrease, if the worldwide birthrates drop further (though there will quite a lag.

 

With regards to resource use, it is a good excuse to enjoy one of Rosling's presentations: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/video/2013/may/17/population-climate-change-hans-rosling-video

[ralfy]

In terms of ecological footprint and biocapacity:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

 

we are already at overshoot given the current population level. That is, the ave. ecological footprint is equivalent to that of Turkey, but biocapacity allows only for a footprint equivalent to that of Cuba.

 

And that population will still rise, which means biocapacity per capita will decrease further. Add to that the effects of environmental damage and global warming.

 

To make matters worse, if lower birth rates will require more prosperity, then that means the ave. ecological footprint has to rise further, even as biocapacity drops.

[iNow]

Your point would perhaps be more credible if you acknowledged the importance of HOW resources get used instead of just asserting that we use some specific amount of resources per capita... as if that's somehow static and unchanging, which it's clearly not.

[ralfy]

Your point would perhaps be more credible if you acknowledged the importance of HOW resources get used instead of just asserting that we use some specific amount of resources per capita... as if that's somehow static and unchanging, which it's clearly not.

You will find more details in the main article connected to the list:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

[iNow]

I don't need more details. I'm fairly comfortable with the concept of an ecological footprint. You're now clarifying a point nobody contested and sharing a reference on a topic nobody misunderstands.

 

The point is that you need to adjust your reasoning on this topic so as to acknowledge that per capita usage is not static. Implicit in your current position is the assumption that we will never find efficiencies or alternatives, which is quite clearly untrue.

[overtone]

 

 

Recently read Danny Dorling's '10 Billion', in which he essentially argues that - contrary to the scaremongering of apocalyptist types - global human population will probably peak at (at most) 10 billion by 2100.

10 billion is pretty scary.

 

I haven't seen a credible, realistic description of a political and economic transition that would support a stable population of 10 billion people on this planet.

[EdEarl]

10 billion is pretty scary.

 

I haven't seen a credible, realistic description of a political and economic transition that would support a stable population of 10 billion people on this planet.

 

I agree 10B people is too many. I'm old and will soon quit polluting, so I'll do my part.

 

Politicians are terrified of saying anything about a stable population for fear of being tagged as supporting population control.

 

Economists look at every person as a consumer and think about how much more money additional people will produce.

 

We just have to trust that people will do the right thing.

[ralfy]

I don't need more details. I'm fairly comfortable with the concept of an ecological footprint. You're now clarifying a point nobody contested and sharing a reference on a topic nobody misunderstands.

 

The point is that you need to adjust your reasoning on this topic so as to acknowledge that per capita usage is not static. Implicit in your current position is the assumption that we will never find efficiencies or alternatives, which is quite clearly untrue.

But I never argued that per capita usage is static. In fact, I was arguing the opposite.

 

I also never argued "that we will never find efficiencies or alternatives." In fact, I assumed the opposite.

[iNow]

I disagree. Those things are implicit in statements that you've been making, statements like this: "ecological footprint has to rise further."

[ralfy]

I disagree. Those things are implicit in statements that you've been making, statements like this: "ecological footprint has to rise further."

You're contradicting yourself. The fact that "ecological footprint has to rise further" shows that "per capita usage" is not static.

Edited September 4, 2013 by ralfy