News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Here's the catch to limiting climate change 

Here's the catch to limiting climate change

10 Sep, 2010 05:39 AM
FOR those who think the worst climate-change projections would become a reality no matter what we do, think again.

According to research published today in the journal Science, global warming can be limited to 1.3 degrees above pre-industrial levels by 2060 - less than the 2-degree rise that UN climate scientists warn is likely to trigger dangerous tipping points.

The catch? We can't build any new carbon dioxide-emitting power stations or cars. Effective immediately.

The researchers acknowledge this is not realistic, but say it underlines that the most threatening sources of man-made climate change are yet to be built. ''If existing energy infrastructure [power plants, motor vehicles, furnaces] were used for its normal life span and no new devices were built … atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would peak below 430 parts per million and future warming would be less than 0.7 degrees Celsius [above today],'' says the paper, led by Carnegie Institution of Washington academic Steven Davis.

The researchers found locked-in emissions were greatest in the world's richest countries - the US, western Europe, Japan - and the emerging economic giants, particularly China.

Nearly one quarter of the world's new electricity generation over the past decade has been coal-fired plant commissioned in Beijing.

Globally, the shift to clean energy sources has been gradual. Since 2000, nearly a third of new power generation has come from burning coal. Another third has been fired by natural gas - less greenhouse gas-intensive, but still a fossil fuel. Carbon dioxide-free energy sources have made up less than one fifth of the new generation. Of that, 17 per cent has been renewable energy - largely solar, wind and hydroelectricity.

Nuclear power, the largest source of installed low-carbon energy, has declined markedly since the 1980s and made up just 2 per cent.

The study only examined industries that emit greenhouse gas directly. Those that encourage people to boost emissions through the products they produce - petrol stations, oil refineries and factories that produce internal combustion engines - were not counted.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
This lot amounts to nothing more than nonsensical yappity-yap that has no purpose but to keep the climate change lie in the eye of the general public. But seriously. These would-be natural science experts know virtually nothing about the electromagnetic forces that influence the earthquake & volcanic activity that determines the long term climatic conditions on this planet. Despite such ignorance, they would have us believe they know what the average temperature will be in 2060 without knowing what geological shifts & influences will occur before then.
Posted by jock, 10/09/2010 9:31:20 PM
All you supergreen folk best start riding your pushies to work........ effective immediately.
Posted by RofA, 11/09/2010 8:45:38 AM
Jock, your wilful ignorance is breathtaking. What you arrogantly call "the climate change lie" is a well-supported theory, with a 90% chance of being correct. It has been known about since the 19th century, and every year as technology improves the evidence becomes more compelling. And here in Australia we are lucky to have many top climate researchers, as well as geologists (try Geoscience Australia) who are contributing to the body of scientific evidence, including of course the influence of seismic activity. Check for yourself!
Posted by nico, 13/09/2010 10:18:00 AM
Nico, The climate is always changing & playing dubious computer games with equally dubious temperature statistics will do nothing to influemce it. Just because it suits your emotional hang-ups to ignore the dubosities upon which the global warming/climate change rhetoric is based , does not mean that those of us who refuse to be duped by the rhetoric are ignorant. The insults thrown at us by you & your kind will not frighten us off Nico.
Posted by jock, 13/09/2010 1:26:37 PM
"Refusing to be duped by the rhetoric" indeed. This is not a question of rhetoric, but of evidence-based science. Jock, please don't be duped by rhetoric, from any quarter. Of course the climate has always changed. But do you dispute that CO2 causes warming? Do you dispute that human activities are putting CO2 into the atmosphere? Do you dispute that measurement and observation show that there is a warming trend? All of these things are mainstream science. Please check for yourself.
Posted by nico, 13/09/2010 5:06:15 PM
What a load of rubbish. I see the great green co2 myth is alive and well and the same true believers are pushing its burrow.
Posted by Loc Hey, 14/09/2010 11:17:40 AM
I have checked for myself Nico, But I have explored the arguments on both sides of the scientific divide. The theory that the temperature is growing perpetually warmer is based on temperature statistics & people like you ignore that fact because it suits them to. It is not about global climate change but purely & expressedly about global economics & the devious practice of declaring everyone guilty & thus deserving the financial impact of a carbon tax..
Posted by jock, 14/09/2010 12:12:53 PM
What a pair, Loc and Jock. Both convinced that the world'ds climate scientists are in some sort of conspiracy ... and neither of them prepared to come up with any evidence. So let's take it one step at a time. (One): Loc, or Jock, do you dispute that CO2 causes atmospheric warming, as postulated by Arrhenius in the 19th century?
Posted by nico, 15/09/2010 9:12:33 AM
I dispute AGW, the tiny amount of difference it makes and esp Aust contribution. There is no evidence to the contrary,and you know it, its all mathimatical modeling without putting in ALL the relavent data, even if there was, so what, a little warming is a whole lot better than cooling, do you have a personal stake in this or something nico?
Posted by Loc Hey, 15/09/2010 9:43:44 AM
Loc, it's probably no use suggesting that you actually look at the science, but here are two good papers on the effects of CO2. Try to understand two things: that a small amount of CO2 blocking radiation can have a significant effect, and a small change in temperature can have a devastating effect (most especially on food production). And yes, I do have a personal stake: I and my extended family live on a small vulnerable planet and it's the only one we've got. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632717/?tool=pmcentrez http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full.pdf
Posted by nico, 15/09/2010 12:47:28 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
09 September, 2010
POLL
Q: Do you believe a minority government formed with the support of the independents can provide a stable and effective administration?

Yes
(23.5%)

No
(70.6%)

Undecided
(6%)

Total Votes: 904
Poll Date: 05 September, 2010

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC SJ



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...