Page 1 of 1
Mark Lynas
Posted: 14 Dec 2009, 12:28
by biffvernon
Mark Lynas, one of the heros of our time, writes in the Grauniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... e-maldives
Posted: 14 Dec 2009, 14:34
by clv101
Peak emissions around about now for 1.5C?
Emissions have already peaked. CO2 emissions in 2009 will be lower than 2008. The US EIA just announced the US emissions will be 6.1% down in 2009 on 2008. Global oil extraction (and therefore combustion and CO2 emissions) is at least 3% down on last year and even in China their electricity production (mostly coal) was around 4% down in the first half of this year.
We have peaked. The question is about whether and how to 'recover' from the global recession.
Re: Mark Lynas
Posted: 14 Dec 2009, 19:05
by RenewableCandy
Yes but isn't he pro-nuke?
Posted: 14 Dec 2009, 21:05
by biffvernon
clv101 wrote:We have peaked.
You know that, I know that, but try telling the rest of the world. They're just not ready for it.
Posted: 15 Dec 2009, 17:52
by clv101
biffvernon wrote:clv101 wrote:We have peaked.
You know that, I know that, but try telling the rest of the world. They're just not ready for it.
I expanded on this idea a bit here:
http://chrisvernon.co.uk/carbon-dioxide ... dy-peaked/
Posted: 16 Dec 2009, 21:29
by Adam1
Chris in his blog wrote:Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 in 2009 are likely lower than they were in 2008.
If last year turns out to be the peak then, our fate is going to be determined by the interplay of two factors: the total growth in CO2/CO2e from the various positive feedback effects versus the success of human efforts to reduce emissions more rapidly than we are forced to by depletion.
Given that the feedbacks are extremely difficult to quantify, isn't it virtually impossible to say with any certainty what targets we should be setting ourselves?