Here is fun online calculator from Wired illustrating the Kaya Identity. Wired writes:Most of the ways we produce energy end up giving off carbon dioxide—which, in large quantities, screws up Earth's climate. But to reduce atmospheric CO2 we have to understand it. That's where Yoichi Kaya comes in. An engineer at Tokyo University, Kaya and a team of carbon experts put together this formula for computing the total CO2 emissions caused by humans—and where it comes from.If you want to see the Kaya Identity in action, pre-order your copy of The Climate Fix right now. (Thanks JJ)Think about the equation for a while and you realize that if we want to reduce emissions to zero, then either population (P), consumption (g), energy used in production (e), or carbon used to produce that energy (f) must go to zero. Of course, we don't want to depopulate Earth or stop eating and commuting. Energy use might be cut dramatically, but it can't be zeroed out. So reducing any of those factors will just buy us some time to come up with a zero-carbon energy source. Get cracking, scientists!
6 comments:
The science is there!!! It's called nuclear energy. Get to cracking the heads of environmental-commies and liberal-commies, folks!
Unless God intervenes, there will be no magic.
"So reducing any of those factors will just buy us some time to come up with a zero-carbon energy source. Get cracking, scientists!"
Duh! Nuclear
(Thorium, of course).
"if we want to reduce emissions to zero"
I'll be the devils advocate today.:)
The only way to reduce CO2 emissions to zero is if we kill every living thing in the animal kingdom including ourselves. We all breath.
What's the point of saving a planet barren of life. Nature already has plenty of them.
Hence, zero CO2 emissions is an undesirable goal.
The purposes of a life bearing planet has to be to provide for the means of life for it's inhabitants, otherwise it's just a worthless rock.
Gapminder.org has a pretty good graphic showing what the 'industrial age' has brought to humanity.
http://www.gapminder.org/world/
'Pre-industrial' has a life expectancy of 40. The median age in the 'developed' world is now more then 35 years old with life expectancies above 70 years old.
It would appear that humanities use of fossil fuels has been commensurate with the purpose of a life bearing planet.
So the question can't be 'how do we get to zero CO2 emissions'. The question must be how do we get to a level of CO2 emissions commensurate with the purpose of the planet.
harrywr2:
The goal isn't zero carbon emissions.
The goal is NET ZERO carbon emissions.
You're right that we need to keep life on the planet.
Stabilizing CO2 concentrations helps achieve that goal.
Allowing concentrations to rise will erase some of the those benefits achieved by the 'industrial age'--which by the way, we're not talking about abolishing, just like we're not talking about killing life to achieve carbon neutrality.
Your understanding of the issue is perverted.
Ask yourself how we can retain the short-term benefits of high-carbon lifestyles with the fewest regrets.
Maybe it involves changing the way we do things.
People like you trumpeting BS isn't helping.
-4-GalacticBanjo
Welcome, thanks for your comments. But please do keep it civil. This is a blog to discuss ideas and arguments, please no more "people like you" stuff ... Thanks!
Roger,
How does this make you an expert on "adaptation and mitigation policy related to climate change?" (as you state in your Q&A)?. I have been keeping track of your posts and papers. I just finished the reading the white paper you, Hulme, and others wrote about the KAYA. Nice but I'm not sure this makes anyone an expert. I have even read your papers dating back to 1998 on the topic of adaptation (written by you and Serawitz)...but all of the papers and writing to data only tell people to "think" about these topics.
Its more like you are an expert on "[writing] about how to make people think about adaptation and mitigation", which is good but that is it. The new science stops there. You offer no solutions, only that there could be solutions. I value an expert as someone who actually shows a real-world physical solution, not a formula. You advocate decarbonization technology....show us what you are talking about,( and please don't point me to more more papers you wrote or send links about Japanese metal policies.)
1) What is out there that is decarbonization technology? Do you actually know what is out there?
2) Without doing your old strategy of pointing to more papers you have written, or the pointing out fact the you testified in front of congress ( we all know that anyone can be called to testify if they know the right congressional staff) how can you claim that you are an expert in climate mitigation and adaptation? Have you rubbed elbows with real scientists who are actually doing climate mitigation ground-breaking research work to see what works?
(Maybe you should remove this claim.)
Post a Comment