The International Energy Outlook 2007 (IEO2007) was released yesterday with an assessment by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the projection for international energy markets through 2030. This includes the details on everyone's favorite element with 6 protons - the very topic keeping many of us blogging as we debate its significance with regard to global warming. In this most recent report, we learn that atmospheric concentrations of C have been increasing at about 0.5 percent annually. What's more.. well, check out these figures:
World carbon dioxide emissions (let's just call them Weapons of Climate Destruction - WCD's - for simplicity) will continue to increase steadily from 26.9 billion metric tons in 2004 to 42.9 billion metric tons in 2030. YIKES! No matter what your take on climate change, you have to agree that this translates to the fact that we humans sure have a way of mucking up the planet. A 59 percent increase over 26 years! If that's not a wake up call, I don't know what is.
Perhaps Vonnegut put it best when he wrote 'we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different,' because he got that right in an all too literal way. We sure overdid it with the combustion of fossil fuels. Which leaves us both wondering (KV and I), 'what gives us the right to wreck this poor planet of ours?'
Because I'm concerned at the realization that 2004 marked the first time in history when energy-related WCD emissions from countries outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) exceeded those from OECD countries. Furthermore, by 2030, WCD emissions from non-OECD countries will be a sobering 57 percent greater.
It's time we stop entertaining the question of whether climate change is happening and debating the cause. It really doesn't matter anymore. Time to get prepared. I'm not an being an alarmist, but lots of folks live along coasts where sea level rise will have an impact. Debate all you want (I had a blast yesterday reading your thoughtful comments), but it's true.
The upside is IEO2007 is not necessarily a horror story or tragedy. I think it's more of a choose-your-own-ending. What I mean is, there are multiple possibilities from here. Ask yourself.. given you're a character in this epic, who's responsible for making the choices that determine its trajectory?
posted by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
- Log in to post comments
I am so confused by global warming.
I hope someone here can help me.
Over the next (fill in the blank) years, the sea level will rise by X meters and the temperature will rise by Y degrees. Of course, there is a significant margin or error.
However, I hear all sorts of people screaming that the effects of global warming are already here. The sea level is rising and flooding roads on Long Island during high tides; the east coast had extremely warm weather in January, etc.
Now, my problem is that if the temperature is going to go up by 3 degrees over then next 50 years (made up numbers) then the fact that January was 6 degrees above average could not have been caused by global warming. 3 degrees over 50 years is .06 degrees a year, on average. No one can notice that this month is .06 degrees above normal; there is just too much noise to notice a change so small.
I believe the same is true for rising sea levels.
So, please help me. I know I am not capable of determining if global warming is real. However, it seems to me that it is not humanly possible for my senses to pick up the changes that global warming has caused.
Am I crazy??
Neil, click my name for a set of book reviews that can guide you to some excellent reading on the subject.
I'd suggest starting with one of the older books, "The Change in the Weather" (1999) by William Stevens, then jumping ahead to Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers" (2006) for solid treatments of the science and technology.
I'll be glad to discuss the various reviews with you and to direct you based on your level of interest and knowledge. Each review has at least one e-mail link to reach me.
If you want to get started on the process of detecting myths and half-truths, an essential skill in navigating this topic, I recommend New Scientist magazine's recent "Guide to the Perplexed."
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
The magazine's entire set of environmental pages is worthwhile. I don't know how much of it is available to non-subscribers, but surf over to the following:
http://environment.newscientist.com/
Good luck!
I am confused about planet warming as well.
Except, I am also slightly paranoid. I believe in the precautionary principle to such an extent that regardless of what 'scientists' are saying, I'd rather plan for the worst than wait to wrap my head around atmosphere science. I hate driving my car. I wish I could bike everywhere and I am slowly changing my habits to conform to this.
I think that if everyone embodied this ideal, our new found perspective would translate into conservation of energy, changes in transportation, etc.
I know, I am one person and I don't technically "feel" it getting warmer. But I view climate change as I do my sense of intuition. Imperceptible changes in a situation can trigger things in my mind (i.e. alert me to danger, help steer me in the right direction, etc). Usually, when I ignore such scientifically unproven intuition, I pay a price. I believe climate change can be viewed in the same way. We sense things are changing; catastrophic storms, dangerous heat waves and so on, but we are resistant to change our day to day behavior. And my current intuition is that we will pay a price if we keep our heads buried in the sand.
That being said, there actions individuals can take regarding the current debacle we're in. Obviously, public transportation, biking and walking are great first steps. I think continuing to pressure lawmakers to take real action regarding energy usage, emissions controls and regulation of industrial polluters are key as well. Additionally, making informed consumer choices when buying big energy users: cars, appliances, homes.
I think the key is to realize we have autonomy even within a restricted market. Even if I'm an environmentalist, I can still be a pragmatic optimist!
I think Sheril's post opens things up to an even bigger concern: If countries within the OECD continue to cut down on carbon emissions while countries outside of it continue to increase carbon emissions, this could add yet another element to the already growing disparity between the 'have' and 'have not' nations.
My chief concern however, is simply how the non-OECD countries will contribute (if at all) to the reduction in carbon emissions. Within our own sphere, we have a lot of voices telling people that there's no such problem, and yet if anything is going to be done internationally, presumably we must do so with a unified voice. Even with a single message, it will be extremely difficult to tell nations such as China (#2 on the total carbon dioxide emitters list) and India (number 4) that they have to cut down on their energy consumption. To compound the problem, I can't imagine the new 'green' technologies that we develop to replace the old 'bad' ones will be nearly as cheap and attractive to a developing country.
What I guess I'm trying to say is, that while we tend to focus on turning our own country green, and assume that once we've done so, our problems will be solved, there is much more to this problem that simply a national one. Not only will other carbon-emitting countries have to follow in our lead (assuming we do in fact lead), they will have to be able to afford to do so. The focus should therefore be not simply on reducing emissions in this country, but creating cheaper options so that this global problem can have a global solution.
I think the issues y'all are presenting are great, but missing one very important element: consumers. Our role (and that of other nations) in producing greenhouse gases will only change when consumers decide that this is an important part of why they buy what they buy. Let's remember that hybrid car sales didn't shoot because of changes in national opinion; they changed because of gas prices. And in the '70s, when the U.S. was passing some of it's landmark environmental protection, it wasn't because policy makers thought they were so great. It was because voters wanted to see it happen.
RE: Now, my problem is that if the temperature is going to go up by 3 degrees over then next 50 years (made up numbers) then the fact that January was 6 degrees above average could not have been caused by global warming. 3 degrees over 50 years is .06 degrees a year, on average. No one can notice that this month is .06 degrees above normal; there is just too much noise to notice a change so small.
The problem with thinking about global warming like this is that it conflates weather (the atmospheric condition at a particular point in time) with climate (the average condition of the weather over a period of many years). So it might be 6 degrees warmer this year than last year, 2 degrees warmer the year after, 5 degrees cooler the next year, 8 degrees warmer five years out, etc. Averaged over 10 or 20 or 50 years, however, it comes out to 3 degrees difference between the average temperature of, say, 1991-2000 vs. 2041-2050 or 1851-1950 vs. 1951-2050.
Think of it like putting money in a savings account or mutual fund for retirement. You might not worry too much about the "noise" of daily ups and downs (even over a few years). If you only made investment decisions based on the value of your account on May 22nd of each year, you'd probably miss a lot of opportunities to maximize your retirement savings. However, if you looked at longer-term averages that incorporated trends throughout the year and across multiple years, you would be able to much better manage you money.
So many great comments and a vast array of perspectives. Greg is right on about the need to engage everyone in an international dialog and I'm encouraged by Megan's pragmatic optimism with regard to personal responsibility. JG brings up an important topic - how consumer choice is influenced and what drives political decisions. I will expand more on this tomorrow with regard to how we 'frame the science' to inform sound legislation. Seems like a good topic at The Intersection..