Some years ago Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, commissioned a study by independent scientists to report back to the GE board on whether there is any legitimate doubt on climate change. The kind of doubt strewn about the empire of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, that made Roger Ailes and his co-horts rich. When the scientists came back and said, no; climate change is for real, Immelt made a series of decisions, including new green technologies as a core profit center and that any executives who expressed further doubt about climate change would not be on the GE team. Period, end of story.
Although corporate America has rallied around (with the exception of Big Oil and Big Coal), political leaders like Florida Senator elect Marco Rubio, Gov. Rick Scott and the GOP majority in the Florida legislature continue to mao-mao against global warming. In Miami-Dade, the county commission, led by Natacha Seijas, refused to allow high resolution maps to be incorporated into the county planning process, that might otherwise avoid significant taxpayer liabilities in the future. Why? Because the builders didn't like it. Here is the conclusion of a recent report issued by the Geologic Society in the United Kingdom. For the full report, click here.
In conclusion - what does the geological record tell us about the potential effect of continued emissions of CO2?
Over at least the last 200 million years the fossil and sedimentary record shows that the Earth has undergone many fluctuations in climate, from warmer than the present climate to much colder, on many different timescales. Several warming events can be associated with increases in the ‘greenhouse gas’ CO2. There is evidence for sudden major injections of carbon to the atmosphere occurring at 55, 120 and 183 million years ago, perhaps from the sudden breakdown of methane hydrates beneath the seabed. At those times the associated warming would have increased the evaporation of water vapour from the ocean, making CO2 the trigger rather than the sole agent for change. During the Ice Age of the past two and a half million years or so, periodic warming of the Earth through changes in its position in relation to the sun also heated the oceans, releasing both CO2 and water vapour, which amplified the ongoing warming into warm interglacial periods. That process was magnified by the melting of sea ice and land ice, darkening the Earth’s surface and reducing the reflection of the Sun’s energy back into space.
While these past climatic changes can be related to geological events, it is not possible to relate the Earth’s warming since 1970 to anything recognisable as having a geological cause (such as volcanic activity, continental displacement, or changes in the energy received from the sun)43. This recent warming is accompanied by an increase in CO2 and a decrease in Arctic sea ice, both of which – based on physical theory and geological analogues - would be expected to warm the climate44. Various lines of evidence, reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly show that a large part of the modern increase in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels, with some contribution from cement manufacture and some from deforestation44. In total, human activities have emitted over 500 billion tonnes of carbon (hence over 1850 billion tons of CO2) to the atmosphere since around 1750, some 65% of that being from the burning of fossil fuels18,45,46,47,48. Some of the carbon input to the atmosphere comes from volcanoes49,50, but carbon from that source is equivalent to only about 1% of what human activities add annually and is not contributing to a net increase.
In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon from burning oil, gas and coal at close to or higher than today’s levels, and from related human activities, could increase the total to close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event – some 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes. Further contributions from ‘natural’ sources (wetlands, tundra, methane hydrates, etc.) may come as the Earth warms22. The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5-6ºC, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of any mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation44. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.
5 comments:
Amazing that people put their heads in the sand, but trust what scientists say on just about everything else. A-holes.
What is needed is a change in the political economy. A public American Bank of Environmental Research is needed. See, private banks typically do not lend for R&D - that comes from retained earnings. A public bank seeded with public money (and accessible for general deposits from the population) could lend for research into new and improved technology. We spend billions on war and propaganda and a pittance on research for real problems. The system of credit production can very easily be turned into a force for public good rather than a source of revenue for Ferrari dealerships in Miami/NYC.
This can be easily established. Once established, we don't have to fuss about the thugs as much.
Let's assume anthropogenic global warming is a fact. What energy source will replace oil?
Wind is so unreliable (~30% capacity factor) it cannot be used as base load without constructing equivalent capacity from another fuel source on standby for when the wind stops blowing.
Solar is not economically feasible on the scale necessary to supply utility-like residential/commercial/industrial needs because battery technology is insufficient.
Even if the above could be remedied there's still an uncompensable reason wind and solar will never serve a mature economy such as the US; neither power source possesses the energy or power density to serve the needs of this nation. That is to say the amount of energy and/or power generated per unit fuel is so low that the real estate footprint necessary to generate sufficient power to sustain our standard of living is so large it is untenable.
While wind and solar are sexy, they don't work on the scale necessary in the US. If this was not the case, why wouldn't the power companies and auto manufacturers be leaping in with both feet?
I've never been able to figure out how an all electric vehicle is more environmentally friendly anyway. Burn the oil (or coal) at the power plant to make the electricity to power the car, or burn the oil (gas) in the car itself. The 1st law of thermodynamics is that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only altered in form. If we convert the chemical energy in oil or coal to electrical energy which is reconverted to chemical energy in a battery which is converted to mechanical energy to push the car, is that more efficient than converting the chemical energy in the gas to mechanical energy to push the car. You environmentalists tell me!
It is an indisputable fact that energy consumption is a direct correlation to lifestyle and quality of life. No juice, and you're a caveman. The most economically powerful countries in the world are the largest consumers of electricity, etc. Which is a function of which? I would argue minimal power equals minimal economies.
The only real answer in the short (50-100 years) term is exploiting the most recently discovered technologies for releasing natural gas from shale to make a transition from oil to natural gas. And we need more nuclear. Real environmentalists are pro-nuclear. Don't start whining about the waste issue. Between the industry and government, it will be figured out. Eventually, we'll reprocess fuel like France. It's not that the technology for dealing with high-level waste doesn't exist, we just haven't had the political or economic will to do it. Natural gas and nuclear will hold us until fusion, hydrogen, or some other as-yet-undiscovered fuel source appears that has the abundance, power and energy density, and environmental compatibility to eventually replace petroleum and coal.
Any other answer is folly.
David is clearly set in his thinking and will hear no other answer. Your "facts" are old and useless.
One or two solutions do not make an energy policy. Just like putting all your eggs in the nuclear basket is no solution either.
Try adding conservation to the mix, a smart grid to balance peaks and valleys of "intermittent" sources like solar and wind, new (and sometimes not so new) storage solutions for CSP (solar) and wind like flywheels batteries and even thermal storage, distributed generation (solar hot water, point-source solar, and small urban wind generators to shave or even eliminate demand from the source), new emerging baseload for Florida like ocean current, geothermal in new places like New England, etc.
Now you have a wedge approach to cutting carbon out of the system.
Electric vehicles, even when charged by a coal plant are more efficient than gasoline powered cars because of the greater efficiency per unit of energy. power plants are far more efficient than internal combustion engines even calculating line losses and conversion losses. Still, Florida (Miami-Dade in particular) gets nearly none of its power from coal - mostly natural gas and nuclear - so electric cars would be a quick way to cut carbon from transportation.
Picking two technologies as winners is as shortsighted as the complaint about solar and wind not being the entire solution.
Fraking for gas could be a key technology, but thanks to the Cheney energy plan it is completely unregulated. Now homes in areas where they are splitting rock with unknown chemicals can literally set their tap water on fire. And nuclear is only a potential "short term" solution if you consider your timetable of 50-100 years short. FPL has been planning new nuclear plants for more than 10 years already and even with massive government handouts and subsidies from Florida ratepayers, they're still 20 years from turning dirt on either plant. And they're probably the utility farthest ahead in the game. It might be a solution in the end, but it is the most expensive of the bunch and the slowest to come on line.
Old, but not useless; and still true. Nuclear and natural gas are the only two existing "clean" power generating technologies with the energy and power density to provide the massive amounts of power our society requires. All other sources are akin to peeing in the ocean from the standpoint of their potential contribution to the necessary whole.
I must say that geothermal and ocean current are likely where the long term solution lies, but until battery technology improves, who wants to drive an electric vehicle that has very limited range and a very long recharge time? Do electric car manufacturers use the turning axle of the car to drive a generator to recharge the battery while the vehicle is in motion? I don't know the answer. My question is, if not, why not? Does anyone know?
Post a Comment