[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment



tomgray <tomgray@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>Hmmm.  You didn't respond to my previous disagreement on this point--any 
>possibility you could do so now?

Sorry.  I was busy at the time, and you did not directly address my point.

>... They 
>find that CO2 emissions can be reduced substantially without enormous 
>pain and disruption.  I realize this is not the same as freezing 
>atmospheric concentrations immediately, but they are talking numbers in 
>the same ballpark and asserting that the economic consequences are 
>modest.

The numbers are in the same ballpark?  Really?  This is news to me.
Stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels would not be extremely difficult.
It was my impression that reducing them to the point where they are
equal to the sinks is quite another matter.  It is always the first
increment that is easiest and cheapest to get, and the last fraction
is horribly difficult and expensive.

Some amount of our fossil carbon emissions is being sequestered, by
means known and unknown.  If I recall correctly, the amount of this
sequestration isn't as great as the emissions from the transportation
sector.  Even if changing every stationary source to non-combustion
or non-emitting technology is easy, converting the installed base of
vehicles to some form of energy which does not emit fossil carbon
would be far more expensive and painful.  The expense and pain would
include buying off regimes such as China, which is basing plans for
economic growth on energy from coal.

I agree that paring emissions back to 1990 levels is a good down payment.
Since the energy intensity of the American economy (energy per unit of
GNP) has been dropping steadily for the entire century, this would not
require anything but the continuation of an existing trend.  It is always
simplest when inertia is on your side.


Follow-Ups: References: