| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| $45 trillion needed to combat warming |
| 2008-06-07 |
| The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday. Al Gore's hoping to do his part by charging huge royalties for his speeches and he'll donate it all to the cause in a few more years. The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth. "Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said. A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels. Which nearly caused extinction of the human race. Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans. Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July. The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century. The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy. Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said. That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy. So what are you trying to say? The second scenario also calls for an accelerated ramping up of development of so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground. The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050. In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity — the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy — in the transport sector. Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand. Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said. "This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project. Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Ha! Yeah, right. Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector. "If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, deep CO2 emission cuts, then these investments will be made by the private sector," Gielen said. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #7 Thought we had one of the coldest winters on record this past year? There are too many Chinese on one side of the planet. They are causing the planet to tilt towards the sun at the north pole and thus causing the ice to melt. Just joshing. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-06-07 17:53 |
| #6 Still "...build some 1,400 nuclear power plants..." We're going to need more power in the future in any case. Parts of this plan aren't necessarily about combating glo-ball vorming; they're just being sold that way in the current political environment. |
| Posted by: Helmuth, Speaking for Thusoling9307 2008-06-07 16:44 |
| #5 All of the people some of the time, Some of the people all of the time, But not ALL of the people ALL of the time. It's the same as TV preachers, If you sound sincere, some will swallow whatever you're peddling hook, line, and sinker, The rest can be shouted down. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-06-07 14:27 |
| #4 And this qualifies for Joke of the Day. Do these useless assholes think they can hoodwink the whole world ? Uhhhhh.... |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700 2008-06-07 10:25 |
| #3 What warming? http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/uah-global-temperature-dives-in-may/ |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2008-06-07 09:58 |
| #2 Oh, and Kyoto is a socialist wealth redistribution pact, disguised as a global warming treaty. Its effect would actually increase global CO2 emission, but redistribute it (along with the wealth). |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-06-07 09:22 |
| #1 Lots of different factors in play on global warming, not just human-generated CO2. Also not just solar variations. Water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 - and its effect is compounded because the higher the temperature, the more the evaporation from the oceans, and the higher the atmospheric concentration and the greater the greenhouse effect, return to the start of the cycle. The CO2 effect also has some compounding - the oceans are a huge repository of CO2, and as they warm they can hold less CO2 in solution, so more gets emitted into the atmosphere to accentuate the greenhouse effect. Return to the start of the cycle. Methane is an even more effective greenhouse gas than water vapor, and huge quantities of it are trapped in clathrates (frozen compounds of methan and water found in the deep ocean sediments near the sea floor); as oceans warm these clathrates may thaw, releasing more methane into the atmosphere. Return to the start of the cycle. These kinds of spiraling effects are behind a lot of the big panicky fears. There are counter effects though. Plants are one - increased CO2 helps them grow, re-fixing that carbon out of the atmosphere. Natural gas production and combustion is another - rather than escaping into the atmosphere as potent methane it is converted into less effective CO2. I am certain there are dozens of others, mostly difficult to model mathematically individually, and at this point impossible to model in interaction with each other - especially without much understanding of initial and boundary conditions. That said, it still makes good sense for many different reasons (climate uncertainty and resource efficiency being two) to moderate our CO2 generation. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-06-07 09:19 |