Comments on: Report: China Doing Most Global Warming Abatement, World Still Far Behind Necessary Target

By: rhjames

rhjames — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:41:00 +0000

Not with billions of humans on it

By: Rhjames

Rhjames — Wed, 02 May 2012 10:04:00 +0000

Exactly right about the population. All nations need to acknowledge that this is the greatest threat to our plant. I wouldn’t have too much confidence in estimates of CO2 concentration 400,000 years ago. Scientists can’t agree on what it was 80 years ago. I can show you direct chemical measurements from 1940 that show that it was 430ppm then.

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 02 May 2012 06:23:00 +0000

Why should we aim for an ‘increasing population’? The world cannot sustain infinite (economic, political, population) growth, so we should we try to aim for it.

In the past 400,000 years – CO2 concentrations reached as low as 190ppm, and the world continued on just fine.

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 02 May 2012 06:19:00 +0000

So? The Earth isn’t in a submarine. What a stupid analogy. CO2 concentrations have been as low as 190ppm in the last 400,000 years and life went on just fine. Can I have a citation for that fact you presented me?

By: Rhjames

Rhjames — Wed, 02 May 2012 03:02:00 +0000

You can’t be serious. At CO2 220ppm, plant growth is significantly slowed. At 150ppp, plants don’t grow. I don’t want to be anywhere near these levels. We have an increasing population to feed somehow.

By: Significant Severe Threat Later Today (near 80 into Thursday) || Conservation Minnesota

Tue, 01 May 2012 09:19:46 +0000

[…] Abatement, Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions To Peak In 2016, But Still Not Enough. Details from Clean Technica: “The DB Climate Change Advisors has released its latest Global Climate Change Policy Tracker […]

By: Rhjames

Rhjames — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:59:00 +0000

Where is the evidence that it’s not safe? CO2 concentration in submarines is twice this level. At a third of the current level, life on earth as we know it ceases to exist. I consider it dangerously low.

By: Rhjames

Rhjames — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:58:00 +0000

China (and India) elected to have huge population increases in the past. The result is a lot of people with a low standard of living. Other countries have had low population increases, with better lifestyle. I believe China should be the one paying compensation, along with India.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:32:00 +0000

” It was nice to see on page 19 that by 2016 some models /forecasts have us breaking the back of carbon emission increases. ”

– I agree.

“Given how dismal the rest of the report is about a few laggards (US!) I think we have to redouble our efforts to make our country a better example to the developing (and expanding!) nations.”

– And I agree.

Actually, I agree with all your comments — thanks.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:31:00 +0000

lol. nice.

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:49:00 +0000

Christ, calm down man!

We need to get CO2 concentrations back to 280ppm.
No compromises. No 300ppm, no 350ppm, no 400ppm. Anything we have added to the atmosphere IS NOT natural and should be reversed.

280. Pronto.

By: Aprilette Sulib

Aprilette Sulib — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:26:00 +0000

This is a very interesting article. Co2 emissions are destroying the Earth's atmosphere and our future generation might not have safe air to breathe in anymore. All this technology and for what? ...the destruction of the atmosphere including the air we breathe is being compromised!!! Airsafe

By: Ronald Brak

Ronald Brak — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:15:00 +0000

China is building too many new coal power stations and that is the main reason why their emissions are still increasing. But at least they are retiring older, less efficient coal plants at the same time, so it’s not quite as bad as it seems. While I do wish China was doing even more to reduce CO2 emissions, it’s hard for me to rouse at them too much when my own country emits about three times as much CO2 per capita as they do. Fortunately we are finally starting to get our act together here down under and hopefully I’ll be able to build up a head of moral opprobrium that I’ll be able to unleash before too long.

By: Christopher Miles

Christopher Miles — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:32:00 +0000

Thanks for the PDF in the post. It was nice to see on page 19 that by 2016 some models /forecasts have us breaking the back of carbon emission increases.

Given how dismal the rest of the report is about a few laggards (US!) I think we have to redouble our efforts to make our country a better example to the developing (and expanding!) nations.

All the developing nations want an American style level of consumption. God help us all if they get it the same way we did.

@Luke- The people at 350.org are realists. No way we’re getting under that level without some sort of cheap C02 free energy breakthrough. In the meantime that org fights hard against the idea that 450 is ok.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 03:50:00 +0000

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times…
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

There is no evidence to support your claim that the scientists in 350.org are “idiots.” And you did not provide any….furthermore, this group recommends 350ppm is the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth’s systems. Climate research data supports this claim. I support this claim.

You want to debate with Dr Hansen what the target CO2 level should be? Have you read his published work on the 350ppm number (located here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126)? What university did you attend Luke?

By: Rhjames

Rhjames — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 03:42:00 +0000

Tell me again how many new coal fired power stations China is building each year?

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:07:00 +0000

Good post, it’d be nice to see us on the downward side of the Bell curve in regards to global CO2 emissions – 450ppm is way too high.

The avg. CO2 concentration BEFORE the industrial revolution was 280ppm. The people at 350.org are idiots – it’s not a ‘safe limit’, it needs to be MUCH lower.