<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The Carbon Logic Problem Statement]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by tfknocks http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/ Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:31:15 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/1 Thanks, Ken. Maybe I need to wait until your next post, but I have a question about the solution: "....halt exploration for new fossil fuel deposits and cap extractions at 1/4 of known reserves." Am I right in saying this is only one of the necessary solutions----i.e. it doesn't get at the problem of deforestation, another major source of GW pollution? That is, theoretically, even if we halt new fossil fuel exploration & cap extractions at 1/4 of known reserves, we could still increase temp by more than 2 C if we don't also reign in deforestation?

]]> Thanks, Ken. Maybe I need to wait until your next post, but I have a question about the solution: "....halt exploration for new fossil fuel deposits and cap extractions at 1/4 of known reserves." Am I right in saying this is only one of the necessary solutions----i.e. it doesn't get at the problem of deforestation, another major source of GW pollution? That is, theoretically, even if we halt new fossil fuel exploration & cap extractions at 1/4 of known reserves, we could still increase temp by more than 2 C if we don't also reign in deforestation?

]]> Comment #2 by Ken Ward http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/ Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:52:32 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/2 You know, I don't know, so I'm glad you asked before I post next piece. Perhaps you have a view on this, but I find the whole area of carbon uptake (at least bio-terrestial) to be a morass of conflicting views and insufficient data/analysis. I don't think there's a question that halting deofrestration is necessary, but I don't know whether failure to do so alone is enough to go over 2.0ºC, how it compares with biomass, where reforestation ranks viz biochar in pulling carbon, and so on. Something to study.

]]> You know, I don't know, so I'm glad you asked before I post next piece. Perhaps you have a view on this, but I find the whole area of carbon uptake (at least bio-terrestial) to be a morass of conflicting views and insufficient data/analysis. I don't think there's a question that halting deofrestration is necessary, but I don't know whether failure to do so alone is enough to go over 2.0ºC, how it compares with biomass, where reforestation ranks viz biochar in pulling carbon, and so on. Something to study.

]]> Comment #3 by tfknocks http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/ Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:05:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/3 This is from the Greenpeace Intl website:  "Thirty percent of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere over the past 150 years is thought to come from deforestation, but this is a small amount compared to what is still stored in forests. The Canadian and Russian boreal forests alone hold 40 percent of the world's carbon stocks."   If those figures are anywhere close to accurate, it's clear that, as you state, halting deforestation is a necessary part of the solution.   Here's that Greenpeace page: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/science/deforestation

]]> This is from the Greenpeace Intl website:  "Thirty percent of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere over the past 150 years is thought to come from deforestation, but this is a small amount compared to what is still stored in forests. The Canadian and Russian boreal forests alone hold 40 percent of the world's carbon stocks."   If those figures are anywhere close to accurate, it's clear that, as you state, halting deforestation is a necessary part of the solution.   Here's that Greenpeace page: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/science/deforestation

]]> Comment #4 by Gar Lipow http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/ Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:14:41 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/4 Comment #5 by tfknocks http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/ Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:24:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/5 Agreed.

]]> Agreed.

]]> Comment #6 by Ken Ward http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/ Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:47:21 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/6 Thanks, Gar. Succinct as usual.

]]> Thanks, Gar. Succinct as usual.

]]> Comment #7 by Peter Wood http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/ Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:28:10 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/7 Ken, yes Waxman-Markey does not do enough, but it does buy us time by causing the US to reduce its emissions instead of increase them. I do not share the above assumptions (except the last one). The reason that things would be better if Waxman-Markey is passed follow from Meinshausen's work. If the US and the rest of the world continues to increase emissions at the present rate then we will blow our carbon budget. But if we start to reduce emissions (even if not at a fast enough pace), we just might be able to stay within a carbon budget.


I don't see it being easy to improve legislation later, but it seems much more likely than the possibility of significantly better legislation happening instead of Waxman-Markey. To assume that if Waxman-Markey is not passed, then we will have some much better legislation instead, is like assuming both for divine intervention and a ladder at once.


]]> Ken, yes Waxman-Markey does not do enough, but it does buy us time by causing the US to reduce its emissions instead of increase them. I do not share the above assumptions (except the last one). The reason that things would be better if Waxman-Markey is passed follow from Meinshausen's work. If the US and the rest of the world continues to increase emissions at the present rate then we will blow our carbon budget. But if we start to reduce emissions (even if not at a fast enough pace), we just might be able to stay within a carbon budget.


I don't see it being easy to improve legislation later, but it seems much more likely than the possibility of significantly better legislation happening instead of Waxman-Markey. To assume that if Waxman-Markey is not passed, then we will have some much better legislation instead, is like assuming both for divine intervention and a ladder at once.


]]> Comment #8 by Ken Ward http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/ Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:59:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/8 Peter,

Not at all. The pressure that is driving legislative action is reality (as observed by climate scientists) which will only strengthen. If that pressure is temporarily relieved by putting Waxman-Markey into law, then nothing much will happen politically, in the short term. If WM fails, then US must take action under Clean Air Act, under mandate of the courts, but this will not reduce pressure for legislative action for a number of reasons.

I just don't the rationale for taking the first deal when that deals defers US emissions controls and relieves building pressure. We will be in a far stronger position a year or two from now and can then dictate terms that would outperform WM and lose..... nothing, because WM does nothing in the short term.

]]> Peter,

Not at all. The pressure that is driving legislative action is reality (as observed by climate scientists) which will only strengthen. If that pressure is temporarily relieved by putting Waxman-Markey into law, then nothing much will happen politically, in the short term. If WM fails, then US must take action under Clean Air Act, under mandate of the courts, but this will not reduce pressure for legislative action for a number of reasons.

I just don't the rationale for taking the first deal when that deals defers US emissions controls and relieves building pressure. We will be in a far stronger position a year or two from now and can then dictate terms that would outperform WM and lose..... nothing, because WM does nothing in the short term.

]]> Comment #9 by branto http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/ Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:49:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-09-carbon-problem-statement/9 Good post, and thanks for the shout-out to RAN. 

Thinking in terms of investment certainly points to the practical challenge. At RAN, we've been talking about the "the $200 Billion question". That's the conservative estimate of investment into long-lived fossil fuel infrastructure expected in the next decade.  Specifically, more than 100 coal-fired power plants, several thousand miles of oil pipelines, and dozens of oil refinery expansions.

The challenge, from this view, is to put the profit incentive behind re-directing those investment dollars into efficiency, renewables and other strategies to break fossil fuel addiction.  There's a role for everyone--from government, to industry, to private investors and pensioners. It's about reworking the financial system--all of it--to internalize now the inevitable costs of burning fossil fuels.

]]> Good post, and thanks for the shout-out to RAN. 

Thinking in terms of investment certainly points to the practical challenge. At RAN, we've been talking about the "the $200 Billion question". That's the conservative estimate of investment into long-lived fossil fuel infrastructure expected in the next decade.  Specifically, more than 100 coal-fired power plants, several thousand miles of oil pipelines, and dozens of oil refinery expansions.

The challenge, from this view, is to put the profit incentive behind re-directing those investment dollars into efficiency, renewables and other strategies to break fossil fuel addiction.  There's a role for everyone--from government, to industry, to private investors and pensioners. It's about reworking the financial system--all of it--to internalize now the inevitable costs of burning fossil fuels.

]]>