Here’s the frightening implication of a landmark study on carbon emissions: By 2018, no new cars, homes, schools, factories, or electrical power plants should be built anywhere in the world, ever again, unless they’re either replacements for old ones or carbon neutral. Otherwise greenhouse gas emissions will push global warming past 2˚C of temperature rise worldwide, threatening the survival of many people currently living on the planet.
Every climate expert will tell you we’re on a tight carbon budget as it is—that only so many tons of carbon dioxide can be pumped into the atmosphere before the global climate will overheat. We’ve already warmed temperatures 0.85˚C from pre-industrial levels, and the number rises every year. While no one thinks 2˚ C is safe, per se, it’s safer than going even higher and running the risk that global warming will spiral out of our control completely.
Last year, the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report established a global carbon budget for the first time. It essentially stated that starting in 2014, the carbon we can afford is up to around 1,000 billion tons of CO2. In other words, our cars, factories, and power plants can only emit 1,000 billion tons (1,000 Gt, or gigatons) of CO2 into the atmosphere if we want to have a greater than 50/50 chance of keeping our climate below 2˚C of warming.
Even considering that humanity pumped 36 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere last year alone, 1,000 Gt still seems like a big budget. It might even seem like we have room to spare.
Maybe not.
New research shows that we may not have been paying attention to the entire CO2 emissions picture. We’ve only been counting annual emissions, and not the fact that building a new coal or gas power plant is in reality a commitment to pumping out CO2 for the lifespan of a given plant—which usually ranges from 40 to 60 years. These future emissions are known as a carbon commitment.
A new study has tallied the carbon commitments from all existing coal and gas power plants by looking at their annual CO2 emissions and current age. The study assumes an operating life of 40 years. A 38-year old coal plant will have far smaller future CO2 emissions, and thus smaller carbon commitment than one built today. The study, “Commitment accounting of CO2 emissions,” determined that most new power plants that went online in 2012 have a very large carbon commitment—19 Gt of CO2.
Read the rest here (if you dare)
Update: belated h/t to Steve Mosher.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Seems like wishful thinking-
“Only 11 of the 144 original parties to the Kyoto Protocol have thus far signed an extension”
Just one mention of the “N” word, in the main article, as something to avoid.
I mean gee, if we build nuclear plants instead of coal plants, wouldn’t this allow new houses to be built without upsetting their carbon budget, without all the handwringing and sacrifice?
I’m just re-reading Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series for the umpteenth time.
Their future worlds are full of atomic devices, even wrist watches!!
I’ve got a little tritium light on my keychain – just to annoy my green friends 🙂
Classic, the prequels written by Brin, Bear, et al are also worthwhile reads.
Wonderful stories, all of them. Remember Multivac, now called the internet.
A favorite of mine, read many times over. One of his other series, I believe it was the Robot series, told tales of the first 50 worlds colonized by humans. One of these worlds, Solaria, was a world where human interaction was taboo and being in the presence of another human was very discomforting. People lived alone and all communications were done via video phone. How prophetic.
I used to read a lot of Asimov, still read it from time to time. I could never quite believe his robots though. I mean, if some corporation build a hideously expensive first generation superhuman AI, they wouldn’t give it a nice set of peace and love laws, the prime directive would be “I’ve just spent 100 billion dollars on you you f*ck, I want a return on my investment!”.
Funny Paul, I just read it too. Many yrs ago when I bought it (the full trilogy in one book), I started & found it boring. But when I tried again just a month ago, it was quite intriguing. So I got Bear’s latest addition, it was also good.
Asimov’s Foundation series, which I adored as a younger man, also explores the distinction between a predicted future and an engineered future. If you know what the future is supposed to be you can then engineer it, or steer it, and thus prove the prophecy (calculations) correct.
It includes a recognition that no matter how carefully you model the future, it will eventually drift for unforeseen reasons. He modeled group behavior with some degree of precision but recognized that no computer program can anticipate individual behavior (that of the “Mule” if I remember right).
Wow. 30 or 40 years ago I read those books and still remember the “Mule”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule_%28Foundation%29
My internal jukebox instantly started playing David Bowie when reading this 🙂
excerpts:
News had just come over, we had five years left to cry in
News guy wept and told us, earth was really dying
[…]
We’ve got five years, stuck on my eyes
Five years, what a surprise
We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got
Espen: Lots of readers here, apparently, but no fans of great rock. Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars – epic. And the guy writing this breathless crappola is “squawking like a pink monkey bird”, why, he’s bustin’ up his brains for the words to his dire warning. Below someone lists many of the “five years ’til doom” warnings – there must be hundreds of them by now. Time passes, and guess what, we still have five years ’til doom. Is there no memory in this system? Is there no ridicule? Are there no jail sentences for the fraudsters? “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” made more sense than this reality.
Pure fantasy, but it may justify the financial support
The author is kennel blind….
Interesting… Didn’t know what “kennel blind” was: “Kennel Blindness is a ‘disease’ which renders a breeder incapable of seeing faults in his own dogs.” Golly, how perfectly appropriate. Thank you for that.
Never mind five years, whatever happened to Prince Charles’ “100 months”?!?
5 years = 60 months
“While no one thinks 2˚ C is safe”
What’s safe? Were there no tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, or storms before human induced climate change?
Clearly imperialism rearing its ugly head again.
Most of the committed infrastructure is in the West. This is forcing the Third world not to develop.
The author should double-check with UNESCO.
The only thing the First World seems perfectly competent at is shooting itself in the foot. If they say to the Third World “Sorry, too many coal plants as it is” then the Third World is going to wonder if it can’t find the money elsewhere to improve its lot. You know, some country with a lot of US dollars floating about, who’d love the chance to help create a new market for all the doodads they’re dying to sell…can you say “China”? Sure you can.
“While no one thinks 2˚ C is safe”
Most of the papers that I have read has found that up to 2C is actually beneficial. It’s only after 2C that negative affects allegedly kick in.
Furthermore, if a 2 K rise is beneficial, then it would stand to reason that some additional headroom would exist before conditions came back to be comparable to our current temperature.
Wouldn’t it be great if the climate whiners and whingers would actually flat out state what type of permanent climate they really wanted? Then they could be told that they can’t have it, and it would save everybody a lot of time and hassle.
Keep in mind they’re talking about a global average. There is more than one way to raise it; temps don’t have to be getting hotter at the top. The average will go up if it’s just not getting as cold during the winter.
“Otherwise greenhouse gas emissions will push global warming past 2˚C of temperature rise worldwide, threatening the survival of many people currently living on the planet.”
Living without a roof over your head will threaten your survival much more acutely.
“Read the rest here (if you dare)”….Reading the headline was really enough. Reading the exposed text reveals that this is just more baseless, senseless, alarmism produced without even the support of meaningless models. Whatever he is smoking, he should cease.
Lies, lies, more lies, followed by some lies.
And nobody in the MSM ever seems to call them on it.
That needs to change. There are enough lies in two paragraphs that if I were his employer I’d seriously consider sacking him. He should be ashamed. But he’s not.
The number and speed of these doom and gloom reports seem to be in direct proportion to how close we are getting to the next international bun fest, payed for by us long suffering tax payers.
James Bull
This IPCC budget of 1000 Gtonnes seems to be pulled out of someone’s butt. And clearly even recent huge annual emissions of up to 36 Gt are not all going into the atmosphere. And with higher CO2 atmospheric content there is some counter effect due to global greening. There is another counter effect if the global oceans begin to somewhat cool and absorb CO2. These people act like the whole process is fixed to rise while all processes (even human based processes) are very dynamic and fluctuate up and down. Might we even expect that even this steady upward atmospheric CO2 increase could level out over the next 100 years? Or even fall? WUWT?
Bernie
It will fall Bernie, as it always follows temp with a lag time. cooling temp will lead to cooling oceans and absorption of CO2 will increase. If the sink exceeds the source, it has to decline
I agree. As you might have guessed, it really wasn’t much of a question!
Wherever they pulled it from, Bernie, they may as well put it back there because China is going to carry on.
Look, we all know these people are complete idiots. The fact that they are not institutionalized is a testament to the propaganda of the various states of the world. The governments have pushed this lunacy to achieve complete and utter control over the masses that they detest. This is political warfare.
Reminds me of the early part of the 20th Century:
The first Soviet Five Year Plan was introduced in 1928. Joseph Stalin (Uncle Joe) set the workers high targets. He justified these demands by claiming that the Soviet Union would not be able to defend itself against an invasion from capitalist countries in the west.
Why does this enter my mind when I read this WUWT article?
If you ever get the chance to read the Gulag Archipelago, you’ll find many examples where the Soviets destroyed industry by setting production goals very high and not budgeting the time or money to repair the machinery. The Moscow Water Works is an example, the railroads are another.
The Soviets appointed people with politically-pure ideology, and no relevant experience to run factories or railroads. These people set high goals because they wanted to show the superiority of the Soviet system. They also believed themselves to be smarter and more capable than the men they replaced.
The quota system likewise made industrial products bizarre to the point of being international laughingstocks. I had a prof who did her masters in economics at Moscow. She tried to move the lamp on her desk and couldn’t budge it. When a male friend succeeded in moving it, they found it had been filled with lead. The lamp quota had been by weight. A Soviet-made vise I had in a timber camp in Africa was snapped. The steel was brittle. And a brand-new, out of the box wind-up clock simply didn’t work. And don’t get me going on the snow-plows for Ouagadougou…
Let me guess:
Because you are relatively well versed in history?
(would this past as an answer?)
I dare them to say that in the political ads now. Just add it to the list of post-election claims of mandate.
If they shut down coal plants without any replacement, the grid will fail in the dead of winter, and some will die.
They know this beforehand. Therefore it is not a miscalculation. It is murder. If many die, it is mass murder.
I think we should use the Alarmists hyperbole. I have been accused of killing my grandchildren, because I want a warm house in the winter at a reasonable price. To that I respond they speak of murder 100 years in the future, but I am speaking of mass murder this winter.
Politicians get nervous even when a word like “miscalculation” is attached to their name. Tell them they will not be let off so easy, this time. They know the consequences beforehand, so the word is “murder.”
I wonder when there will be a ban of wood heating? I have an infinite supply out here in the hinterland based on the 4 or 5 cords I use for heating each winter – the cost – a small amount of gasoline and oil, and my sweat.
Can someone explain to me how changing from a high density energy source (coal) to a low density energy source (wood pellets) reduces CO2 output from British Power Plants?
(Rhetorical question, of course it doesn’t, it just reduces emissions from trees that will be prevented from turning into “fossil” fuels a few thousand years from now. What a complicated web we weave … )
It seems someone is making a lot of effort to plant an anti-fossil fuel seed in ill-educated people. That will make a lot of fossil fuel available down the road for … ?
“What’s in It
Anthracite coal is a hard shiny high carbon coal that burns very hot and produces little flame. And while it may be sold in several sizes, such as rice, pea or chestnut, it is of a consistent composition: coal. Wood pellets on the other hand, may contain a number of ingredients, such as hardwood or softwood sawdust, cardboard, other varieties of biomass, and some type of binder such as wax or glue. When buying wood pellets it may be advisable to check the ingredients listed on the bag, or question the dealer.
Heat Output
When comparing heat output/pound or ton, anthracite coal is the clear winner. The BTU rating for hard coal will range between 22 and 30 million BTU/ton. Because of their varied composition, the heat from a ton of wood pellets may range from about 17.5 to 19.5 million BTU/ton. If you take an average BTU rating from each fuel, coal produces about 7.5 million more BTU/ton than pellets. If expressed as a percentage; it equates to 40 percent more
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_5597091_wood-pellets-vs_-coal.html”
http://www.ehow.com/list_7521693_problems-pellet-power-generating-plants.html
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/05/10/does-burning-wood-instead-of-fossil-fuels-increase-ghg-emissions/
Well, it’s stopped snowing so I am off to cut some firewood.
Wayne, wood pellet burning is more emissions efficient if the material is harvested from the dehydrated wood pellet tree.
Ponder this,
Kilowatthour generated per unit of fuel used:
1,842 kWh per ton of Coal or 0.9 kWh per pound of Coal
127 kWh per Mcf (1,000 cubic feet) of Natural gas
533 kWh per barrel of Petroleum, or 12.7 kWh per gallon
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=2
The current record holder for the [manpowered watts/]Hour Record is Ondrej Sosenka and the website BikeCult.com has an estimate of his average wattage during his Hour Record at 430 Watts! If Ondrej’s bike were attached to a bicycle generator and it was super efficient, Ondrej would have been generating enough power to light up 7 60-Watt light bulbs! Since I pay about 10 cents/kWh, if I were to pay Ondrej for the energy he produced over the hour he was pedaling he would have almost earned a whole nickel (430 Watts • 1 hour = 430 Watt-hours = .43 kWh)!
http://www.mapawatt.com/2009/07/19/bicycle-power-how-many-watts-can-you-produce
So a pound of coal will get you 900 watts of power and the world record (2011) of human power 430 watts (your results will be less).
Caleb – You are not familiar with the Soviet/Stalin model which is rapidly being adopted by the UN and other western political entities.
“They” want the grid to fail. “They” want horrible suffering. Then they will have a “show trial” and force out the existing energy management and install a new gov’ment. monopoly to “save the people”. This progression never fails as long as the left controls the press and the education system, and is thus able to tell the world who the bad guys are.
Well if they’re so worried about CO2 emissions then they’d better find a way to stop all those insects, ocean outgassing, and volcanoes from spewing all that CO2 into the air – those which dwarf human emissions
Volcanoes no. Oceans are net absorbers and eat up over a quarter of what the throw out ( land biosphere another quarter ).
Try again but get informed first.
Stratovolcanoes, yes. CO2 is one of the most common gasses, along with H2O and SO2. Now, as to total volume discharged on a global scale, I don’t know.
Reading the comments on Motherboard was entertaining. I notice that the comments are already closed.
CAGW Rules:
1) When the models are against you, argue the data.
2) When the data are against you, argue the models.
3) When both are against you, call the other people names, and cry.
“Carbon commitment” —
1) each power station built is committed to emitting X amount of CO2 in its lifetime (unless taxed into submission)
2) each human being built is committed to exhaling X amount of CO2 in its lifetime (factor them in too!).
More sheer jibbering lunacy. Reminds me of computer scientists (I can criticise them, I’m one too) predicting computers will be smarter than people in N years. They started in the 1950s with 5 years. Then it became 10, now it’s (take your pick) 20, 50,… . At least computer scientists had the sense to stretch out the estimate when it didn’t come true and even today google search, with all the billions thrown at it, is just as dumb as the very first text searchers, only faster. (I was searching for some local news and I typed “baby killed in accident”, so google offered me “best deals for baby killed in accident”, “bargain prices for baby killed in accident”, and so on. Some gee whiz A.I. going on there!) But climate scientists are more stark raving insane than that, they keep on trotting out “5 years” as if we don’t remember the past 20 times they pulled the trick. Put ’em all in the padded room where they won’t hurt themselves, or us.
Ron,
I may have my facts wrong, but didn’t the Japanese through MITI bet the farm on A.I. and took it on the chin when it didn’t pan out?
Once upon a time … isn’t that the way the fairy tale starts? Anyway, once upon a time, we had ten years before disaster would hit. Then, Mr. Gore foretold of an ice-free Arctic in five years … so much for that fairy tale. Now Mr. Leahy’s piece is setting out another five-year plan. Well, if Mr. Leahy intends to stop building coal plants and gas-powered cars in five years, that’s his choice. Just don’t impose that choice on others.
Meanwhile, snow in Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota, with more to come … and it’s still summer. Could be a preview of another really long cold winter. No wonder the alarmists have cut their calls of disaster down to five years … try to create a stampede that’ll destroy industrial civilization (and the deaths of several billion).
Two things.
1) – Then give up right now, pack it up and go home. China says it will set an absolute cap on emissions from 2016, but emissions will continue to grow until 2030. Please cease and desist heckling the rest of the world until you have persuaded China to change course. (Reuters, China plan to cap CO2 emissions seen turning point in climate talks)
2) –
There is no world government. Most of us don’t want one, me included. Make rules for the world when you find the brains, balls, and force to conquer the world. Until then, piss off. But I mean that in the nicest possible way though.
Because the left never created anything other than hysteria they assume coal and gasoline even a thousand years from now. It never occurs to these nutbags that techology isn’t static. I’m sure some alarmist in the 1800’s was ranting about how the continuous use of steam would kill us all.
Actually, it was a “coal shortage” and a large push for more efficiency. The result was MORE coal use, not less. An economist named William Stanley Jevons looked at it and came up with ‘Jevons Paradox’. Since greater efficiency results in less cost per use you get more total uses. Net increase in consumption.
“The Coal Question:” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912002741
Then gigantic deposits of coal were found in North America and Australia and… the issue of English coal efficiency subsided for a while 😉 But there was a ‘panic’ of sorts over a coal shortage in the UK. Just when the Crown and friends owned control of it. (Look up “coal tax post”. Movement of any coal was taxed to the Crown. AGW is, IMHO, just The Crown writ large pining after those old Coal Tax Posts also writ large…)
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/coal-tax-post-redux/