Quote:
Originally Posted by Scopie
Offsetting Australian carbon emissions by 2020 IF the blueprint could achieve it (which I sincerely doubt) would have a negligible effect on total carbon emissions given that Australia generates .25% of those emissions. Energy consumption rising at 3% a year, global population 50% higher in 20 years... tick tock.
Try these for size:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...opulation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water
In particular, a quote from the energy consumption article:
More than half of the energy has been consumed in the last two decades since the industrial revolution, despite advances in efficiency and sustainability.[7] According to IEA world statistics in four years (2004–2008) the world population increased 5%, annual CO2 emissions increased 10% and gross energy production increased 10%. [8]
Limiting global temperature rise at 2 degrees Celsius, considered as a high risk level by Stockholm Environmental Institute, demands 75% decline in carbon emissions in the industrial [notice it doesn't say western] countries by 2050, if the population is 10 mrd in 2050. [13] 75% in 40 years is about 2% decrease every year. - and really... good luck with that because...
The single most coal using country is China. It s share of the world coal production was 28 % in 2000 and 48 % in 2009. Coal use in the world increased 48 % from 2000 to 2009. In practice majority of this growth occurred in China and the rest in other Asia. [26]
I could include one about the collapse of fish stocks by 2050 ... You're just up the road Clive. We should chat! |
Just one comment. Thank god for someone finally making the point that whether global warming occurs, and what to do about it, are two separate issues. If you think carbon taxes are a bad idea, fine, (I'm dubious myself), but that has nothing to do with the science. If you want to argue the science, argue the science. If you want to argue the economics, argue the economics. Vocal people on both sides are prone to getting this wrong in my opinion. One tries to claim that the economics doesn't work and that this somehow invalidates the science too. The other claims the science is solid and then presents their preferred economic solution as a fait accompli.
No wonder these threads rarely make any sense.