Don't mean to ruin your week. My company is in the business of advising Fortune 100s on environmental issues. So, believe me when I say this is a big business concern...especially in Europe. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121202164059.htm Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are set to rise again in 2012, reaching a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes -- according to new figures from the Global Carbon Project, co-led by researchers from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The 2.6 per cent rise projected for 2012 means global emissions from burning fossil fuel are 58 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year for the Kyoto Protocol. This latest analysis by the Global Carbon Project is published December 2 in the journal Nature Climate Change with full data released simultaneously by the journal Earth System Science Data Discussions. It shows the biggest contributors to global emissions in 2011 were China (28 per cent), the United States (16 per cent), the European Union (11 per cent), and India (7 per cent). Emissions in China and India grew by 9.9 and 7.5 per cent in 2011, while those of the United States and the European Union decreased by 1.8 and 2.8 per cent. Emissions per person in China of 6.6 tonnes of CO2 were nearly as high as those of the European Union (7.3), but still below the 17.2 tonnes of carbon used in the United States. Emissions in India were lower at 1.8 tonnes of carbon per person. Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and professor at UEA, led the publication of the data. She said: "These latest figures come amidst climate talks in Doha. But with emissions continuing to grow, it's as if no-one is listening to the entire scientific community." The 2012 rise further opens the gap between real-world emissions and those required to keep global warming below the international target of two degrees. "I am worried that the risks of dangerous climate change are too high on our current emissions trajectory. We need a radical plan," added Prof Corinne Le Quéré. The analysis published in Nature Climate Change shows significant emission reductions are needed by 2020 to keep two degrees as a feasible goal. It shows previous energy transitions in Belgium, Denmark, France, Sweden, and the UK have led to emission reductions as high as 5 per cent each year over decade-long periods, even without climate policy. Lead author Dr Glen Peters, of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, said: "Scaling up similar energy transitions across more countries can kick-start global mitigation with low costs. To deepen and sustain these energy transitions in a broad range of countries requires aggressive policy drivers." Co-author Dr Charlie Wilson, of the Tyndall Centre at UEA, added: "Public policies and institutions have a central role to play in supporting the widespread deployment of low carbon and efficient energy-using technologies, and in supporting innovation efforts." Emissions from deforestation and other land-use change added 10 per cent to the emissions from burning fossil fuels. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reached 391 parts per million (ppm) at the end of 2011. These results lends further urgency to recent reports that current emissions pathways are already dangerously high and could lead to serious impacts and high costs on society. These other analyses come from the International Energy Agency, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Bank, the European Environment Agency, and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Interesting info, heypartner. Sounds like you're in a good field! The United States and Europe see significant declines (I think any decline is significant, given our history), and unsurprisingly, China and India are spewing crap into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow. Yes, the US and Europe have been there, done that, but we're at least looking at the corner, even if we haven't turned it yet. I despair at seeing India (where I've traveled) and China (only been to Hong Kong) making big strides anytime soon in reducing emissions. I hope I'm wrong, of course, but what I've seen in India doesn't have my hopes up, and what I've read about China doesn't, either.
funny <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IAaDVOd2sRQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> and sad
They using the techniques that were so successful for the US and UK. Cannot get high and mighty about something we have benefitted from greatly. Now we have that position of prominence . . . these type of things are seen more about us trying to keep our position and limit their ability to get to this same position MORESO than just an environmental issue. We once again begin looking like the hypocrit Doing what ever we need to do to get where we want. . . . . and don't give a d*mn who says what and once we are there We condemn everyone else who does the same because now we are 'enlightened' Rocket River
I don't see much that the environmental movement has done in the last 15 years except outsource pollution and jobs to China where there are many fewer controls. (oh and create fuel poverty in England) I'll be happy to listen to them about alternative energy sources (low CO2) when they either are willing to push for nuclear (particularly thorium) reactors. Thanks to a simple concept known as energy density, nothing else is a reasonable option. The group I work for manages power plants (mostly gas-fired), so don't try to sell windmills to me - the only reason those are made are to milk government subsidies. If you look at the TCO, they will never be an economical solution to supplying power to the grid.
I'm not sure how accurate this chart is, but it shows US carbon emissions per capita the lowest it's been in decades. Due in large part, I'm sure, to natural gas replacing coal as the fuel of choice at many power plants. It's too bad that much of the rest of the world is hostile to natural gas fracking, but it gives the US a competitive advantage. http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us carbon emissions
The only hope I have for the PRC is that they aren't in denial about the connection between man made activities and global warming. They aren't sacrificing their industrial develop to address it though but you don't see Chinese leaders arguing the science. At the same time they have taken the lead in developing sustainable technologies, something the US pioneered.
Arctic Sea Ice... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cQ3QUdIxvxg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Antarctic sea ice...going the other direction - and has been since 1992. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html The fun part is they say the growth in antarctic sea ice is driven by wind, but ignore that the break-up of arctic ice this year was driven by a major cyclone. Wind activity was also behind the last major low in sea ice. Don't worry, it will freeze again. The truth is, we have only been measuring arctic ice since the 70s (the tail end of a very cold cycle), and we have no idea what the norm for the amount of sea ice actually is.
China leads the world in renewable energy production. http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproje...12&cid=regions&syid=2008&eyid=2011&unit=BKWH# The problem is there hasn't been any significant breakthrough in renewable energy in the past 20 years.
Before people get on their High horse, I'm curious to see the breakdown of emissions based on exports/domestic use for India and China. I mean, I have to assume a lot of that carbon is used to make stuff for Wal-Mart and other companies that import from China and India. If that's the case, it's pointless to crack down on Them. Because companies will move to other, less developed countries with no regulations, and emit there. In the end it's about the consumers. And I'm wiling to guess the biggest consumers by far are right in front of the mirror.
