Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 3:16 am
   06 Jun 2007

   Trying to find the source...

   ...EPA report from which that graph comes, in the orginal article it's simply reported as a draft copy of a February report.  It would be nice to find the numbers behind it, and also the original graphic because you have to increase your zoom on your browser to 200% to get good detail...

   Permalink

2. 

   Laurence Aurbach Posted 3:35 am
   06 Jun 2007

   WRI Flow Charts

   As far as graphic design goes, I'm a lot more impressed with the GHG flow charts made by the World Resources Institute. They just have a whole lot more useful information, and they look better too.

   World GHG Emissions Flow Chart

   US GHG Emissions Flow Chart

   Ped Shed Blog

   Permalink

3. 

   Karen Street Posted 3:53 am
   06 Jun 2007

   A great graphic

   Jeffrey Winters, the author of the original article and the excellent graphic, sent me a better version than used in the article; it's posted at A Cool Graphic. You can also go here to get just the graphic.

   Winters' source for his graphic, on my to-read list, is Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005, released in February. Winters finds the whole report to be "a goldmine", but check out the "Trends" and "Energy" sections for the data he used.

   The WRI graphics are also excellent.

   Much thanks for advertising the graphic and A Musing Environment!

   Karen Street

   Permalink

4. 

   David Roberts Posted 3:57 am
   06 Jun 2007

   Cool

   I linked the wee graphic to the bigger one.

   grist.org

   Permalink

5. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 4:37 am
   06 Jun 2007

   The final report is ...

   ...here

   Permalink

6. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 4:49 am
   06 Jun 2007

   Great WRI graphics too..

   ...notice that machinery plus other industry, which means most of manufacturing minus energy-intensive things like chemicals, concrete, and metallurgy, emits at most about 7% of GHG gasses, which means that most of the manufacturing sector, at least, cannot be accused of sending the climate off the cliff...

   Also, this gives me an opportunity to point out that Gristmill's Charles Komanoff has a book, called "Ending the Oil Age" which you can get on-line, and which on page 8 has a very good breakdown of the uses of oil in the U.S.

   Permalink

7. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 5:42 am
   06 Jun 2007

   Great graphic

   Note the big ticket items, electricity, cars and light trucks = 50%.

   Jon also makes real good point about manufacturing. Railing against "the man" loses some of its punch when you realize that you are "the man" (personal transport, electricity use). Home heating with fossil fuels, only 5%, flying 2.6%.
   

   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

8. 

   JMG Posted 6:04 am
   06 Jun 2007

   2.6% understates the impact of jets

   Biod, not to repeat a point already made many times (that would be so unlike me ;^), but there is a lot of evidence that the greenhouse effect of jet travel is significantly understated if you only count the direct carbon emissions.

   I count 726 squares on the grid (22 x 33) and 19 under aviation, for direct greenhouse gas emissions of 2.6%; however, as posted here several times, this appears to understate the magnitude of the problem that jets cause:

   
   Water Vapor

   ... What you may not be aware of is that the water vapor from jets is uniquely harmful, because jets pump millions of tons of water vapor up into the atmosphere WAY up there (6 and 7 miles high).  

   That is why jets do far more to destabilize the climate than their 2% share of greenhouse gas emissions suggests they would.

   See this Christian Science Monitor story:
   http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0212/p13s02-litr.html

   "Jet engines burn kerosene, which gives off carbon dioxide (CO2), a leading cause of global warming. Airline flights today make up less than 3 percent of man-made CO2 emissions, though they also spew nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, soot, and water vapor that may double their total warming effect on the climate."

   Or this about a study published in Nature
   http://environment.about.com/b/a/256757.htm

   "Overall, aviation accounts for only about 2 percent of carbon dioxide emissions globally, according to the International Air Transport Association, but at high altitudes jet exhaust may cause a warming effect that is two or three times greater than that of carbon dioxide.

   Contrails, trails of ice that condense when the hot exhaust from jet engines hits the cold air at high altitudes, can last in the atmosphere for hours and spread to cover thousands of square miles before they eventually dissipate. The icy contrails act like giant mirrors suspended in the sky. By reflecting the sun's radiation, they cause some cooling, but they also block heat rising from the Earth's surface, which contributes to the greenhouse effect and global warming.

   At night, the warming effect is magnified, because there is no reflective cooling effect to help counter it. And the problem becomes worse in winter, when cold, moist air is more likely to exist at all elevations. According to the researchers, contrails are almost twice as likely to form in winter than in summer.

   The research study, which was reported in the journal Nature, found that night flights accounted for only 25 percent of the daily air traffic but contributed 60 percent to 80 percent of the warming caused by commercial aviation. At the same time, winter flights accounted for only 22 percent of the annual number of commercial flights, but they contributed half of the annual warming effect."
   

   Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

   Permalink

9. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 6:46 am
   06 Jun 2007

   Transportation + electricity = 60%?

   It looks from the chart that, roughly, transportation of all types spews 27% of Ghgs, electricity 33%, for a combination of 60%.  Then we've got about 20% for "industrial", which can also include construction and mining, which both use alot of diesel-sucking equipment, and the rest of the 20% divided among agriculture, commercial and residential.  However, this must mean that we aren't talking about electricity for any of these sectors, or else there would be double counting, so that would be a different analysis.  Some of the categories also require a little more research, such as ac & refrig in the transportation area, which I figure means ac & refrig for freight, and the "other" categories.  

   But anyway, at the very least, making electricity GHG free would do alot, and so would doing the same to transportation.  But as I have argued before, this is going to require mainly society-wide building, such as rail or wind farms, more than what individuals can choose to do by shopping, although obviously both are needed.

   Permalink

10. 

    Matt G Posted 7:28 am
    06 Jun 2007

    Contrails aren't that scary

    Air travel is even more complex of an issue than [JMG] mentions above.  The fact that they only last a few hours makes this a dynamic and transient problem.  If we all stopped flying today, their effect on the planet would stop literally tomorrow.  This doesn't mean this isn't a problem, but I'll take a problem you can fix in a day over something with the time scale of atmospheric carbon dioxide anytime.

    Permalink