For Guinness Sakes

News & Analysis
In the News Gristmill Blog Muckraker Podcast Features

Columns
Ask Umbra Victual Reality Weekly Recipes The Bottom Line From A to Green The Grist List

Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

ADVERTISING POLICY

[Advanced]

Read more about: climate | climate change impacts | Ireland | news | all of these topics

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Climate change will make Ireland less green, says well-timed report

Posted at 3:47 PM on 17 Mar 2008

It's St. Patty's day -- so you just knew someone would do a study on the impact of climate change on Ireland, didn't you? Sure enough, the Irish American Climate Project has issued a report entitled "Changing Shades of Green," warning that decreased rainfall could necessitate a nickname change for the Emerald Isle, and summer droughts could bring about Potato Famine II. "You tell people in Dublin that the climate might be like the Mediterranean coast and their initial reaction is, 'So what? That'll be nice in the summer,'" says project leader Kevin Sweeney. "Then in about five minutes, it sinks in. And these same people are like, 'Oh my God, that won't be same Ireland anymore.'" Insert cheesy "bad luck o' the Irish" joke here.

sources: Reuters, The Virginian-Pilot

ADVERTISING POLICY

< Previous | Next >

Comments: (2 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

The Blarney Stone

Just because they won't have as much mold growing in the bogs, no reason for eyes to stop smiling. At any rate, it was high time that the Irish (famed story tellers all) got into the Tall Tales Business about what's going to happen once "The Global Warming Sets in...sure and begora". Yes, stately plump Buck Mulligan can finally have a shave in tropical weather and not be bothered as much by the chill in the castle walls.

by jabailo at 12:57 AM on 18 Mar 2008

Organism eats CO2, and produces fuel

Cutting emissions is ridiculous, because the CO2 will soon be used as fuel, and we can remove the CO2 from the air profitably. Sound like science fiction? Try science fact:

"Still as ambitious as ever, (Craig Venter) just announced at the TED conference: "We have modest goals of replacing the whole petrochemical industry and becoming a major source of energy, we think we will have fourth-generation fuels in about 18 months, with CO2 as the fuel stock." What's this fourth-generation fuel he's talking about? Biofuel alternatives to oil are third-generation.

The next step is life forms that feed on CO2 and give off fuel such as methane gas as waste, according to Venter."

- "Geneticist Craig Venter Wants to Create Fuel from CO2," TreeHugger.com

Naturally evolved organisms already exist that eat CO2 and excrete fuel, but the limiting factor is getting enough CO2 from the air. Air is much less than 1% CO2 now. The efficiency can be improved using genetic engineering, and a suicide gene added to assure the GMO couldn't live outside a lab.

Or,

Expensively cutting our emissions fast and drastically is ridiculous, because sulfate particles can be injected into the upper atmosphere, reducing the amount of solar radiation that strikes the Earth:

"The Panel (on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming) calculated that adding stratospheric aerosol dust to the stratosphere would cost just pennies per ton of CO2 mitigated."

-"The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering"

The total cost would be around 10 billion dollars a year, and using engineered particles could lower the cost 90%!

Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations requires a 60-80% cut in CO2 emissions worldwide, a wildly expensive prescription. Ironically, CO2 in the air could be an asset. Besides, there is a very inexpensive alternative mitigation strategy.

It is an unfeasible strategy to cut world-wide emissions so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming are avoided.

Besides, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters as it warms, not only significantly reducing the amount of CO2 nature removes from the air, but dramatically increasing the amount of natural greenhouse gas emissions that go into the air, overwhelming any cuts we make.

Now, I'll add another reason: it is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous to make expensive emission cuts to remove a potential asset from the air.

Brad Arnold
www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod

by dobermanmacleod at 2:47 AM on 18 Mar 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?