Natural gas isn't the only reason US carbon emissions fell

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2013 11:41 PM GMT
    Wind and biomass together made more of an impact. Solar should and could be much bigger.
    figure3.gif
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/15/natural-gas-isnt-the-only-reason-u-s-carbon-emissions-are-plummeting/(Note that these calculations do not include fugitive methane emissions from natural gas or changes in land use from biofuel production. So that’s one key caveat.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2013 5:07 AM GMT
    That thing that makes plants grow quicker with less water?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2013 5:48 AM GMT
    BroTie saidThat thing that makes plants grow quicker with less water?


    Not necessarily. Most plants do grow quicker, but others don't. And water may not be available for the quicker growth.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=697

    More detailed review:
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
  • Zinc

    Posts: 197

    Feb 16, 2013 5:56 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    BroTie saidThat thing that makes plants grow quicker with less water?


    Not necessarily. Most plants do grow quicker, but others don't. And water may not be available for the quicker growth.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=697

    More detailed review:
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108


    Wasn't the carboniferous period fed by a warm climate with higher CO2?
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Feb 16, 2013 9:04 AM GMT
    Yeah, didn't climategate expose that CO2 follows the natural and cyclical rise in temperatures?

    And not to nit pick percentages but I read that one supertanker, idling out in the ocean for months at a time, belches more pollution and CO2...note the distinction, than all the cars in North America combined.

    No doubt we need cleaner, sustainable energy, but carbon hysteria was started to create carbon credits, and carbon trading, and carbon taxes, and carbon billionaires like Al Gore is set to become.

    The average person is propogandized to feel guilty about exhaling, while industry just enters a new casino marketplace as a profit center.

    In one of Obama's first STOTU addresses, he half heartedly affirmed his comittment to combating global warming; to which nearly the entire chamber erupted in laughter and chuckles. Even Obama smirked like an insider"yeah, cant' believe they made me say that" I gave him credit for the smirk.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2013 3:46 PM GMT
    wild_sky360 said
    And not to nit pick percentages but I read that one supertanker, idling out in the ocean for months at a time, belches more pollution and CO2...note the distinction, than all the cars in North America combined.


    Nice touch there...CO2 and pollution (including sulfur and smoke) . Not so true for CO2 alone though.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

    gases-co2.png
    Shipping is only part of the 7% nonroad CO2 emissions by transportation.
    chart_emissions_by_source.gif

    BTW, nobody is asking you to be guilty about exhaling. icon_lol.gif
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Feb 17, 2013 8:41 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    wild_sky360 said
    And not to nit pick percentages but I read that one supertanker, idling out in the ocean for months at a time, belches more pollution and CO2...note the distinction, than all the cars in North America combined.


    Nice touch there...CO2 and pollution (including sulfur and smoke) . Not so true for CO2 alone though.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html


    BTW, nobody is asking you to be guilty about exhaling. icon_lol.gif


    Thanks for the link to my quote icon_redface.gif and permission to exhaleicon_smile.gif

    It's a shame we're still using these resources so destructively, when perfectly clean energy is at hand. They will not be developed until every last cent of profit is extracted from the existing model, and all the accompanying strategic and population reduction objectives are achieved first. I think it's more about control than economics, truthfully.

    The CO2 agenda is antihuman.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Feb 17, 2013 9:14 AM GMT
    Too bad Canada can't follow suit. Harper is showing his true colors as a short sighted idiot.
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Feb 17, 2013 9:45 AM GMT
    Medjai saidToo bad Canada can't follow suit. Harper is showing his true colors as a short sighted idiot.


    I know the tar sands projects are a huge boon to the Canadian economy. But it rubs me the wrong way to expend more energy producing liquid energy, than what is produced as an end product.. At least they plan to restore the land.

    And in the US there is a natural gas boom, but potentially at the price of the environment. We''ve already taken all the easily extracted gas and are now resorting to fracking, which can poison the entire water table and literally destabilize the Earth's crust.

    It's just sick to continue as we are, yet the result of a major change in the energy paradigm would risk crashing the world economy; as would a rapid demilitarization of US foreign policy. War is our biggest industry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 2:05 PM GMT
    I guess somehow the climate changing consistently for billions of years lends reason to worry. I mean the fact that there are 2-3 billion people who can eat barely enough to poop is going to destroy more humans than climate change.

    Wind power is absolutely negligible, requires the destruction of millions of acres of natural beauty to reach its full potential and even then it'll never hit even 20% of our growing demand for energy. Especially when we all charge our cars.

    Solar power is highly inefficient and also would require the Gobi filled with super cells to be reasonable. So we pay billions to support inefficient technology so that we can replace it in 5 years with more efficient but still inefficient technology...

    Hydro resources destroy our river ecosystems. Hydro plants need a heating source, most commonly coal or natural gas because they're cheap.

    Biofuels are still composed of carbon and mostly burn. They also require farmers to produce one crop, destroying their land. If they can't produce for environmental reasons, taxpayers foot the bill without receiving the benefit.

    NONE of the environmental options provided are economically viable or practical and most require the destruction of other natural (though mostly scenic) resources.

    If the country went vegan one day per week, they'd save billions of dollars, millions of cruelly kept animals and hundreds of billions of pounds of CO2 while also saving land and water resources and consuming less electricity and likely opening the door for healthier meat raised on real farms.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 2:08 PM GMT
    too bad solar technology is ridiculously inefficient and expensive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 2:15 PM GMT
    The oil and gas industry mantra that natural gas lower carbon emissions is a fallacy. Sure, it has less of an impact than petrol, but the extraction of natural gas does far more damage to the environment than you can imagine.