From Burness Communications via Eurekalert
Urban transportation systems an emerging priority ahead of UN climate and sustainable development meetings
NEW YORK (17 September, 2014)—More than $100 trillion in cumulative public and private spending, and 1,700 megatons of annual carbon dioxide (CO2)—a 40 percent reduction of urban passenger transport emissions—could be eliminated by 2050 if the world expands public transportation, walking and cycling in cities, according to a new report released by the University of California, Davis, and the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP).
Further, an estimated 1.4 million early deaths could be avoided annually by 2050 if governments require the strongest vehicle pollution controls and ultralow-sulfur fuels, according to a related analysis of these urban vehicle activity pathways by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) included in the report.
“Transportation, driven by rapid growth in car use, has been the fastest growing source of CO2 in the world, said Michael Replogle, ITDP’s managing director for policy and co-author of the report. “An affordable but largely overlooked way to cut that pollution is to give people clean options to use public transportation, walking and cycling, expanding mobility options especially for the poor and curbing air pollution from traffic.”
“The analysis shows that getting away from car-centric development will cut urban CO2 dramatically and also reduce costs, especially in rapidly expanding economies,” said report co-author Lew Fulton, co-director of NextSTEPS Program at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. “It is also critical to reduce the energy use and carbon emissions of all vehicles.”
The report, A Global High Shift Scenario, is the first study to examine how major changes in transport investments worldwide would affect urban passenger transport emissions as well as the mobility of different income groups. The authors calculated CO2 emissions in 2050 under two scenarios, a business-as-usual scenario and a “High Shift” scenario where governments significantly increased rail and clean bus transport, especially Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and helped urban areas provide infrastructure to ensure safe walking, bicycling and other active forms of transportation. The projections also include moving investments away from road construction, parking garages and other ways that encourage car ownership.
Under this High Shift, not only would CO2 emissions plummet, but the net financial impact of this shift would be an enormous savings over the next 35 years, covering construction, operating, vehicle and fuel-related costs.
The report was released at the United Nations Habitat III Preparatory Meeting in New York on September 17th, in advance of the September 23rd United Nations Secretary-General’s Climate Summit, where many nations and corporations will announce voluntary commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including new efforts focused on sustainable transportation.
“This timely study is a significant contribution to the evidence base showing that public transport should play central role in visions for the city of tomorrow” says Alain Flausch, Secretary General of the International Association of Public Transport, and member of UN Secretary General’s Advisory Group on Sustainable Transport.
Better Mobility Leads to Social Mobility
The new report also describes sustainable transportation as a key factor in economic development. Under the High Shift scenario, mass transit access is projected to more than triple for the lowest income groups and more than double for the second lowest groups. Notably, the overall mobility evens out between income groups, providing those more impoverished with better access to employment and services that can improve their family livelihoods.
“Today and out to 2050, lower income groups will have limited access to cars in most countries under almost any scenario; improving access to modern, clean, high-capacity public transport is crucial,” said Fulton.
“Unmanaged growth in motor vehicle use threatens to exacerbate growing income inequality and environmental ills, while more sustainable transport delivers access for all, reducing these ills. This report’s findings should help support wider agreement on climate policy, where costs and equity of the cleanup burden between rich and poor are key issues,” noted Replogle.
Emission Standards Save Lives
Air pollution is a leading cause of early death, responsible for more than 3.2 million early deaths annually. Exposure to vehicle tailpipe emissions is associated with increased risk of early death from cardiopulmonary disease and lung cancer, as well as respiratory infections in children. Car and diesel exhaust also increases the risk of non-fatal health outcomes, including asthma and cardiovascular disease.
The International Council on Clean Transportation evaluated the impacts of urban travel by cars, motorcycles, trucks and buses on the number of early deaths from exposure to soot emitted directly from vehicle tailpipes. “Future growth in vehicle activity could produce a four-fold increase in associated early deaths by 2050, even with a global shift to mass transit,” said ICCT’s Joshua Miller, a contributor to the study. “We could avoid about 1.4 million early deaths annually if national leaders committed to a global policy roadmap that requires the strongest vehicle pollution controls and ultralow-sulfur fuels.” Cleaner buses alone would account for 20 percent of these benefits.
Fuel Economy Standards Save Fuel and Cut CO2 Emissions
While this study has not focused on further actions to boost motor vehicle fuel economy, it takes into account existing policies that, in the International Energy Agency’s Baseline scenario, improve average new car fuel economy by 32 percent in countries that belong to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group of 34 of the world’s most developed, democratic, market economies, and 23 percent in non-OECD countries.
The High Shift scenario increases this to 36 percent and 27 percent respectively, due to improved in-use driving conditions and a slight shift to smaller vehicles. However, the Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI) calls for much more: a 50 percent reduction in fuel use per kilometer for light-duty vehicles worldwide by 2030. Achieving the GFEI 2030 goal could reduce 700 megatons of CO2 annually beyond the 1,700 reduction possible from a High Shift scenario. Taken together, achieving this fuel economy goal with better public transport, walking and cycling could cut annual urban passenger transport CO2 emissions in 2050 by 55 percent from what they might otherwise be in 2050 and 10 percent below 2010 levels.
Cutting Emissions with Sustainable Transportation Across the World’s Cities
Transportation in urban areas accounted for about 2,300 megatons of CO2 in 2010, almost one quarter of carbon emissions from all parts of the transportation sector. Rapid urbanization—especially in fast developing countries like China and India—will cause these emissions to double by 2050 in the baseline scenario.
Among the countries examined in the study, three stand out:
- United States: Currently the world leader in urban passenger transportation CO2 emissions, with nearly 670 megatons annually, the US is projected to lower these emissions to 560 megatons by 2050 because of slower population growth, higher fuel efficiencies, and a decline in driving per person that has already started as people move back to cities. But this pace can be sharply accelerated with more sustainable transportation options, dropping to about 280 megatons, under the High Shift scenario.
- China: CO2 emissions from transportation are expected to mushroom from 190 megatons annually to more than 1,100 megatons, due in large part to the explosive growth of China’s urban areas, the growing wealth of Chinese consumers, and their dependence on automobiles. But this increase can be slashed to 650 megatons under the High Shift scenario, in which cities develop extensive BRT and metro systems. The latest data show China is already sharply increasing investments in public transport.
- India: CO2 emissions are projected to leap from about 70 megatons today to 540 megatons by 2050, also because of growing wealth and urban populations. But this increase can be moderated to only 350 megatons, under the High Shift scenario, by addressing crucial deficiencies in India’s public transport.
The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) is a global nonprofit that helps cities design and implement high-quality transit systems to make communities more livable, competitive and sustainable. ITDP works with cities worldwide to bring about transport solutions that cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce poverty, and improve the quality of urban life. Please visit http://www.itdp.org for more information.
UC Davis is a global community of individuals united to better humanity and our natural world while seeking solutions to some of our most pressing challenges. Located near the California state capital, UC Davis has more than 34,000 students, and the full-time equivalent of 4,100 faculty and other academics and 17,400 staff. The campus has an annual research budget of over $750 million, a comprehensive health system and about two dozen specialized research centers. The university offers interdisciplinary graduate study and 99 undergraduate majors in four colleges and six professional schools.
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) is a non-profit research organization dedicated to improving the environmental performance and efficiency of transportation to protect public health, the environment, and quality of life. ICCT provides national and local policymakers with technical analysis of regulations, fiscal incentives, and other measures for clean vehicles and fuels. For more information, please visit http://www.theicct.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You will have to pry my steering wheel out of my cold dead hands!
Mr Grace, on forums, try not to be deliberately waggish.
I think Peter asks a perfectly sensible question. And it is quite possible Dan is more likely to front end a brick wall because he is also keen on ensuring a firearm is found in his cold dead grip.
/wag
I think, despite what P.G. thinks, Dan’s comment is fine. (A paraphrased protest quote against the would be “masters of the world”)
Dan’s car allows far greater freedom, and often efficiency. Dan’s car helps crops grow better world wide.
The statistics in this article are simply non-sense.
non-sense? Is that the latest euphemism for made up?
MarkW,
Or one of my favorites, “Horse-Hockey”. It invokes so much more of the global warming hockey stick based meme. (h/t Col Sherman Potter (Harry Morgan) from MASH)
Were certainly easier to herd when they have us all gathered into 50 foot aluminum boxes and tubes, I’ll grant you that. It takes away those silly spontaneous urges to take a drive in the country alone or with company you choose. Peter, how about full disclosure of your transportation choices.
Depending on what you drive you may be producing less CO2 per passenger mile. I recall a government study done several years ago where transit produces more CO2 per passenger mile that automobiles. I think because the busses and trains off hours were not full and sometimes nearly empty.
Diesel? Really? You prefer those coal-rolling killers?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2617425/The-deadly-diesel-deception-We-bullied-buying-diesel-cars-help-fight-global-warming-Now-experts-say-green-fuel-killing-thousands-us.html
Is ISIS on board with this.
Not hardly, ISIS is making money hand over fist by selling oil! http://online.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-funds-push-into-syria-and-iraq-with-labyrinthine-oil-smuggling-operation-1410826325
That depends what the meaning of IS IS
Name change to ISIL. Try to keep up.
You know… for as many times as I’ve thought of Bill Clinton when I heard the name ISIS (and it has happened often), it never clicked why the White House has taken to calling them ISIL. Perhaps one of them made the connection, too, and didn’t want to be associated with Clinton?
Lee, my first thought was why they had to start dragging Egyptian gods into this.
John, according to Dr. Pipes, the best translation of this groups name is Islamic State in Greater Syria. Greater Syria and Levant are rough equivalents.
This was noted when everyone else was calling them ISIS but your revered leader (Obama) was making a point of calling them ISIL. The L standing for ‘Levant’ – the heart of the Levant is … Israel. They are already making commentary that ‘Palestine’ is their target.
Socialism and it’s solutions?
Hell: A planned community.
Does that mean that Somalia is Heaven?
Stephen, there’s a world of difference between total govt and no govt.
Complaining about too much govt is not the logical equivalent to a declaration that there should be no govt.
MarkW September 18, 2014 at 6:08 am
“Stephen, there’s a world of difference between total govt and no govt.
Complaining about too much govt is not the logical equivalent to a declaration that there should be no govt.”
Yes, of course, but what does “Hell: A planned community.” sounds like?
It sounds like first-hand experience with a home owner’s association. That is Planning Commission tyranny at a much more personal level.
Solutions? That depends on what you think the problem is..is.
Oh my. Climate cult meet the anti-car central planning cult.
They are one in the same.
The Planners are dangerous people mostly educated in socialist environments … it is a question of mind over matter, I don’t mind and you don’t matter!
Ya gotta have some planning, lads.
By 2050 NO ONE. Will care how much CO2 is produced
markx, why?
Hi MarkW,
I am glad you asked. You may not have noticed, but homo saliens tends to live in groups. That means there are many interactions between individuals, and between groups. Within a civil society, decisions must be made and agreed upon. So some degree of organisation, structure and plannibg is required.
Otherwise it is dog eat dog and survival of the fittest.
If people live longer as a result of reduced pollution, won’t they in turn consume more, thus creating more polution?
Touche!
True that. However CO2 is not pollution, and the inane morons of the left need to learn that.
And the laid off auto workers and economic spin off won’t cost us much.
With an increasingly old population, how are you going to get them on bicycles and walking miles in the heat, rain and snow? How are you going to elderly to carry their groceries and new purchases of all kinds home? How are we going to be able to compete with societies that take advantage of mechanized travel? How are we going to care for the green plants and trees that need more CO2? Green things die when CO2 is down to 250ppm, and ideal is 2200ppm. Today we are at 400ppm we need to make more CO2 for more greenery to produce more Oxygen and to produce more food. In Canada, they direct the exhaust from their heaters directly into their Greenhouses to double plant growth with more CO2.
Build a vertical society where everything needed is contained in the same building. Deliveries in the freight elevator please
Wouldn’t have to be vertical. Edgar Chambless’s Roadtown was a similar idea, but stretched out horizontally.
http://www.trivia-library.com/b/history-of-the-weird-utopia-roadtown-part-1.htm
Are you thinking of Paolo Soleri because he also talked of solutions to how best to shape mega-cities?
Stephen, It’s been almost 40 years since I visited ArcoSanti. Are they still working on it?
They tried that in several sixties Britain council estates, where high rise meant only ten or twelve floors not the twenty or more floors that modern high rise housing demands. Unfortunately elevators were often vandalised. Others just broke down. In 1972 and then again in 1974 domestic power cuts resulted in there being no elevators for at least three hours each day. Disabled, elderly (and not just elderly) were stuck in their apartments or, if they had missed the last elevator, in the lobby or in the street.
Because of Green pressure against the building of nuclear and current EU legislation forcing the closure of coal power stations the United Kingdom has been warned that within the next couple of years there could be serious electricity power cuts during the winter. The possibility of such cuts is bound to get worse as the country becomes more and more dependent on wind and solar. (In most of Britain for two months each winter the sun does shines for less than eight hours a day, even in clear weather.)
MarkW
I don’t know what has happened but it looks like it hasn’t come to much. Paolo Soleri did try to infer that his ideas weren’t dogma. I thought his approach confronted the practical problems of unlimited extension of cities in one dimension. Atlanta in particular have quantified that civic costs start to increase once a city grows beyond a certain limit.
paullitely
The problems with the 60s high rise were not caused by these structures. Broken lifts or vandalism can be solved or addressed. Paolo Soleris argument was that a city of individual high rises meant that all physical communication was via one plane (ground level), thus introducing additional barriers, than with low rise. His ideas, although controversial, considered having one building per city and travel would be in 3 dimensions with no need for any vehicle other than elevators or escalators. The surface area of a city building would be significantly less than it’s current equivalent thus reducing the distance to get to open space. He also articulated the problem of unrestrained horizontal development in that all journeys require space and the ability to cross each others journeys. As a consequence the internal combustion engine is not a great solution to getting around if it can never get into 5th gear and up to a sustained 60 mph and ones journey is constantly interrupted by someone else s.. And I do not mean that the internal combustion engine is bad as I think it is a fantastic liberating tool.
Frank Lee MeiDere
September 17, 2014 at 10:01 pm
“Wouldn’t have to be vertical. Edgar Chambless’s Roadtown was a similar idea, but stretched out horizontally. ”
Fantastic idea. You could even build several of them in parallel, and others orthogonal to the first ones, and you would arrive at a compact grid. I think I’ll call that GridTown. Gridtown has the advantage of allowing an optimal usage of land and the grid of roads enables fast travel to any destination.
how are you going to get them on bicycles and walking miles in the heat, rain and snow? How are you going to elderly to carry their groceries and new purchases of all kinds home?
In California, they’re about to ban plastic bags. That should help.
So, how are the elderly going to take care of their garbage?
People won’t be allowed to buy more than they can carry. Simples.
So we now have to make six trips instead of the one. Simpletons.
Already happening, stack ’em & pack ’em.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULeJd75f3YQ#t=167
Or, put in search box :
Speaking of Agenda 21 Dr. Stanley Monteith & Michael Shaw
1 hr 49 mins
Filmed 2006.
I’m surprised that this is the first mention of agenda 21 and ICLIE. Search also Rosa Koire for YouTube videos of her great presentations. Oh well I might as well attach the one I think explains the UN agenda best. It is UN international, but being implemented locally through ICLIE:
The whole point of Green initiatives is that old people don’t need to travel to buy groceries — that is rampant planet-killing consumerism. Why don’t they grow a vegetable garden on their living room carpet, or go out and gnaw trees?
Old people are overwhelmingly bigoted and reactionary anyway, so why not just help them to die quickly? /sarc
Sadly some think and feel this way. Old white people are especially looked down at.
Not just Canada, UK as well, but few know that CO2 is good for plants certainly not our stupid government.
Verily.
Once we are all herded into our 5X5 boxes so they can cram 100 million people into the area of the Bronx, who will need to go anywhere anyway? We will all be too depressed and “irrationally” angry at the unnatural state of it all that our overlords will have to put us out of our misery. – the Utopian world of Agenda 21.
Once crammed into habitation zones, the overlords will only need to shut down food/water/sewer systems. There, problem solved!
Paullitely,
Excellent points especially the elderly, weather, bicycles, and walking, etc.
These people in Universities have no idea what the common folks need to survive or live comfortably and especially in the USA, in the suburbs and rural areas where people are working and paying taxes. Next they will take our Air Conditioners away and tell us where ti set our thermostats in the winter
Do they have any idea as to how snowbound much of the USA was last winter and In Northern NJ where I live, little of the snow and ice melted until late Spring. When I was a kid I tried riding my bike on ice and learned a lesson quickly.
My proposal is that any significant idea such as this should undergo a 5 year trial mandatory for Government employees, especially the administration, congress, and the EPA employees. If it is successful after the trial period, then we could expand the proposal. Think how this would solve the traffic problem in Washington and how many employees would leave the government because they don’t like riding bikes to work/school.
Already solved. They’ll simply move us. China is waiting.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-ghost-cities-in-2014-2014-6
Cheap and lots of open spaces————–if you like the desert.
Is ISIS on board with this?
Wait, $100 trillion???
LOL, yes 100 trillion. These are the same numskulls that enabled global support through international banking to leverage debt to currency collapsing levels.
I think it’s $100T over the next 20,000 years or some such.
Cut out the CO2 calculatons from this report and re-evaluate to see if it still makes sense, economically. CO2 is not toxic and poses no threat to human health at concentrations many thousands of times higher than current concentrations. Other emissions, maybe not the same case.
I tried this – copying the report and them removing the references to CO2 emissions. It does make sense, especially if you omit the references to BRT (usually means “Bus Rapid Transit”, though some would suggest it should be interpreted to mean “Build Rail Transit”).
Buses are heavily polluting, diesel exhaust is not good to breathe, and the UK is well behind the cue ball, contravening European air pollution standards frequently. The various nitrogen oxides and the particulates, unburnt and partially burnt soot particles are carcinogenic to some degree. Electrically powered vehicles, preferably on rail as then sections can be linked together, as in the multi-articulated trams in favour in many European cities, operate with minimal pollution in the streets (some small amount of ozone from the electric motors is probably not dangerous in the very low concentrations.
For Dan Bothell – keep your steering wheel if you with – this is about giving people a choice. Santa Baby, nothing to do with Socialism. Steve Oregon – nothing to do with any anti-car planning cult, just good orban economics.
Thanks, John Andrews for your suggestion, you are right.
How many times do we have to run around this tree? People do not want to be stacked in little cubbies for the convenience of everyone else. If they did, suburbs would be anathema by nature. They aren’t in every single culture. There is yet to exist a culture where living in dense populations is considered good. And since cultures are actually accumulated knowledge from past failures, I go with the culture.
This list of transit in the US seems pretty authoritative: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-your-citys-public-transit-stacks-up/
What does it show? The NY/Newark area have as much transit use as the rest of the nation combined. What is NY like? High costs for everything (especially housing) leading to cramped conditions, poverty, stress.
Are people flocking there? Only the huddled masses yearning to be free. Once they get free, they head to mid-sized cities outside of the large urban complexes. http://www.weather.com/news/commuter-conditions/americas-15-fastest-growing-cities-are-mostly-west-south-20140522
What this tells me (and I have been trained in urban planning) is that no one willingly signs on to these boon doggles. They must be coerced. I will consider giving up my car when every single liberal politician, celebrity and activist gives up every vehicle in their possession and rides nothing but bicycles and mass transit.
Nothing needs be banned, it is simply a matter of charging accordingly…. (See Singapore’s COE and ERP systems). So, the rich, privileged, the wasteful, the status seekers can drive as much as they wish, but in the process they contribute to government coffers, which, hopefully and realistically, will be spent on improving infrastructure. You can hang onto your steering wheel if you wish.
Idiotic concepts of whacking carbon taxes on power generation should be ditched, (power generation that brings education and production efficiency and civilization) and instead the focus should be on improving goods and people transportation.
LOL, tell that to Wendell Cox !!
there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a good public transportation system together with better facilities to encourage walking and cycling where appropriate.
However very many people need their own vehicles or modern life could not be lived and there is not always a practical alternative.
tonyb
Diesel particulates have a bad press due to US EPA action without any scientific backing. They banned PM2.5 based on geresay. When taken to task they tried to get humans to breath in PM2.5 particles but had to stop because it was against the law that they had imposed.
We breath in all sorts of particles, pollen, fungal spores, bateria, virus. Most of these are PM2.5 or smaller and have no effects, unless as a bacteria or virus they are infective but many many are not, and diesel particulates are non reactive carbon. They should not be a problem.
Nitrogen oxides are different and high concentrations are a problem.
Dudley, people have a choice, and they choose their own cars.
Choice implies that you are paying for it yourself. You want mass transit, feel free to pay the whole cost yourself.
markx, interesting how you assume that people drive cars because they are status seekers.
Shows that your personal biases are completely blinding you to reality.
BTW, those who ride cars are paying our own way. It’s the mass transit bums who are demanding that everyone else pay their way. No mass transit system in the world pays it’s own way, they can’t even cover operating costs, much less capital investment.
Mass transit only makes sense if the population is willing to use it. Houston Metro has a budget of $1.3B and fares account for 7% of that. That barely covers the cost of fuel. Most of the remainder is subsidized by sales tax. The problem for Metro is the buses must run regardless of how many, if any, want to ride. I often see empty buses driving on the streets. Metro has about 58.5M riders per year…that means the cost per ride is $22/rider. Is it worth it? I have my doubts.
http://www.ridemetro.org/FinancialAuditInformation/Pdfs/Budgets/FY2014-Business-Plan_Budgets.pdf
http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Documents/pdfs/Ridership%20Reports/2014/0714_Ridership_Report_FY14.pdf
johnmarshall offered
September 18, 2014 at 3:54 am
Not when you’re stuck behind one in traffic, especially on a bicycle. Dragon breath couldn’t be worse.
MarkW on September 18, 2014 at 6:15 am says: …… “markx, interesting how you assume that people drive cars because they are status seekers….”
No, you misunderstand me. Now, with the transport systems we have, many need cars, and many people such as myself care little for driving anything for status value. Small and economical to run, or old and cheap to buy usually is the go.
But, in a world where cars are expensive to buy and expensive to run, and decent public transport is available, the more likely purchasers are the very rich, or the not quite so rich. The very rich, because to them it is a trivial expense. The not so rich, either for status, and sometimes out of convenience. The poor value keeping their hard earned cash over convenience.
Obviously the improved public transport system should be in place before cars get squezed out, but I am reasonably sure most governments eill manage to get that the wrong way around.
Disclaimer. I lived for two years in Singapore and not once did I feel the need or desire to own a car. The rest of my life I have lived outside of major population centers and have always owned and felt the need to own a car or motorcycle.
But now I see relatively poor populations in densely populated areas harnessing themselves to the banks and finance companies (now THERE is the real enemy!) as soon as they can… Enslaving themselves for that illusion if freedom…. And in truth they currently have little choice .
Singapore is a city state. The US is a real country, with real distances.
Price does not live in a vacuum. What allowed man to raise themselves out of subsistence was not making things more expensive, but making them cheaper. Until you understand that basic law of economics, you will always be clueless.
Its everything about totalitarian Socialism which is being infiltrated into western society by the United Nations.
Just look up ICLEI http://www.iclei.org/ which is the UN’s arm that infiltrates local councils and take a good read. The odds are that your local council is a member.
Take are read around your local school curriculum and you will likely find the infiltration there as well and god knows elsewhere.
You could also read my blog at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Cheers
Roger
I’m still waiting for AL Gore to come down to my level of pollution.
Ban, call me when you and Al get onboard with this pollution thing.
Please, the earth is dying and you guys are holding up saving the whole planet.
Reduce your pollution to my level then I’ll let you know what we need to do next.
I’m way ahead of you and Al, I’ve already stopped my world travel to climate conventions.
Plus I refuse to take my private jet out of the hanger.
Let’s go…Your move.
John, try some basic math before posting such nonsense. “CO2 is not toxic and poses no threat to human health at concentrations many thousands of times higher than current concentrations.”
Let’s try a simple “many” multiplier of 2.5 * 1000 * 400 = ?ppm
Yep, that’s pure CO2, which does pose a threat to human health…
Though you probably meant “many thousands of ppm higher”, which is true of course. 8D
Umm; CO2 is plant food, and necessary to life on earth. It IS NOT a pollutant.
If you say it enough times it makes it true.
Uh. Actually it is true. Plants die without enough CO2. They thrive with CO2 up in the 1,000s of ppm.
Without CO2 this planet would be a lifeless wet rock in space.
Reality is true, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.
CO2 is plant food and necessary to life on earth.
There is no evidence that CO2 at levels less than around 50,000ppm is harmful to life.
That’s how you types operate. Transference, ever heard of it.
Jeff giles says: September 17, 2014 at 9:44 pm
If you say it enough times it makes it true.
=====================
It’s true. I dare you to find one peer reviewed scientific paper that claims CO2 is not plant food and is not necessary to life on Earth. Just one will do..
Jeff giles said “If you say it enough times it makes it true.”
Jeff giles is a troll. Jeff giles is a troll. Jeff giles is a troll.
There, it’ s true!
Cost of living in NYC is high because demand to live there is high. Same as in LA where I live. I take public transportation as much as i can. It sure beats fighting traffic and looking for parking. I’d rather walk two miles than drive, and I do so on a regular basis. It has nothing to do with CO2 for me. It’s convenience.
There is another side to the cost of NY. It is set on a group of peninsulas and islands, making it difficult to get around without costly bridges/tunnels which are natural choke-points.
While there are some like you who love urban living, that is not the trend. The demand for NY living is, like every central city in the country, declining due to affluence. The population density of every central city has been continuously declining since the advent of easy transportation away from them (aka the 1950s).
Given a choice, most people choose to have more than a single wall between them and their neighbors, and usually, the more distance you can put between you and them affordably, the better.
Dire Wolf, you logic is dire. I live in NYC and the population density is ever increasing, the rents and real estate more and more astronomical. People are moving here despite the suburban choice. They move here for loads of reasons, convenience behind one of them. Everything I need, culturally, sexually and intellectually is at my fingertips as well as a bar, pizzeria and all night laundry. Other cities are declining for the simple fact that there’s no work as well as a dynamic city. Some people love cities others hate them. Some people love the unpredictability, the convenience, the diversity of cities; others like the quiet, predictable, easy pace of the burbs. Each to his own.
But one thing I am absolutely sure of, if you want to save resources, nothing makes more sense than moving to a city. In NYC, we consume over 40 percent less energy than our suburban brethren.
Either way, on a forum about getting facts right, get yours right first before commenting.
Dire Wolf September 17, 2014 at 11:01 pm
“The population density of every central city has been continuously declining since the advent of easy transportation away from them (aka the 1950s).”
I think its more to do with the reduction in family size. My mother’s family house in London at the turn of the century had 6/7 family members plus another family renting out one room. Increasing wealth and education has helped reduce family size and therefore density.The ‘gravity’ of mega cities has not abated and I’m sure you know as well as me that now more people live in urban than rural. It is true that there is a greater turn over of city populations than before but there are other dynamics than transportation, such as schools and work. London still pulls more people in due to the variety of opportunities which is the same for just about all cities.
No doubt,and when I lived in New York I liked the 2 mile walk I was doing everyday to school so much that it became a 4 mile round trip, but later, when it was rainy or snowing It started to become a pain and so I took the subway more often. Then in the Dinkins administration, the streets and sidewalks became so crowded with bike messengers that you could hardly walk without being knocked down by them. The thing with bikes is you can’t hear them coming. That’s when and why I left the city. You see something really does happen to people when they age, those 4 mile walks that used to be fun become harder and harder to do.
People use public transportation in New York not because they like the busses and subways, but because the alternative makes no sense. It cost over $400 a month just to park a car and, if you drive it you’ll probably not find a parking place anywhere near your destination, and sit in traffic all day while you look for parking. The older people who can afford it can take cabs, if they can find one and don’t mind sitting in traffic. It takes at least 1/2 hour to get anywhere in the city.
I now live in Sarasota Florida, there was more to do in NYC, but I do more here. Most of the time what I want to do is a 5-15 minute drive sometimes 1/2 and hour drive, rarely longer than that. There were plenty of time in New York I wouldn’t go out because the trip was too long.
I don’t think we’re in any danger of running low on CO2. Too much water can also be bad — it’s called a flood.
Pete, and your point is? You see, water is healthy to a point , correct? Well we have done thousands of peer reviewed studies on CO2. The benefits are clear and linear for several doublings from pre-industrial times. So no, we are not in danger of drowning from CO2.
More bicycle commuting would not be a bad thing if it involved the new power-assist bikes making it easy to climb hills and going against the wind (not to mention just going faster).
It would pare down the obesity epidemic by quite a bit too, as the aerobics would build muscle and burn millions of pounds of fat across the nation. The public health savings from that would be huge, something which the study doesn’t really mention.
Either way, it’s probably one of the cheapest options, bike paths cost much less to build and maintain than light rail lines and are even suitable for small towns.
Power-assist bikes? C’mon! The bicycle is one of man’s greatest inventions. Climb hills with your gut and thighs, or get into granny gear. Plan C: get off and walk. You aren’t going to be cutting down on the obesity epidemic with power-assist bikes.
In addition, it is usually the least-skilled riders on such contraptions, going too fast, and making the paths less safe for everyone.
Good ideas about the bike paths, because the big problem now is that our cities have been designed around the car, and for the most part, cars and bikes do not mix. Sorry. I’ve been riding a long time, and there are too many reckless and/or distracted drivers on the streets.
The problem with bike paths is that they become too popular, with all manner of wheeled devices competing for the driveway-wide pavement, including baby carriages, unicycles, skateboards, roller-bladers, runners, walkers and bicyclists, including the powered-jobs, and people with dogs, lots of people with dogs.
I know what you mean…God I hate people. Especially people walking or walking with dogs.
Exactly. It is a win-win all around. I look forward to the day we have free public transport, although I’ll never see it. I lives the idea of subsidized taxis, actually, although I do not know if it could work.
For those objecting to diesel buses, we have very nice gas-powered buses and taxis here in Oz, and they are cheaper to run.
“…free public transport…”
Define ‘free’. If you mean YOU don’t pay but I do, that’s not free.
Adam
I have had an electric bike for 5 years which I charge up using a small solar panel.
It is excellent in many circumstances but there are many other circumstances where it is not practicable.
I can see few downsides in encouraging their wider use by providing better facilities such as dedicated cycling routes.
tonyb
Personally I think it would be a literal pain in the butt. I hate bikes because of that.
Power assist bikes are not new. They have been around the 1970s, and were called mopeds. There used to be some in cities in China and France, and even a few of the bicycle messengers I mentioned in my previous post had them, but they died out when people got cars. People like cars. Email replaced many of the bike messengers.
A few years ago I was visiting NYC and there was rare huge March snow storm. We wait two hours for Chinese food to be delivered a few blocks, it is very hard to peddle in a foot of snow.
Yeah, lets all go back to horse and carriage and the gruesome middle ages
Every gun shot also pollutes the air.
Take guns away from the people.
Get a university to research that in USA.
Good luck.
Every breath releases dangerous levels of carbon pollution so how long before CO2 scrubbers become standard facewear?
“Every gun shot also pollutes the air.
Take guns away from the people.
Get a university to research that in USA.
Good luck”
==============
Will never happen as that would only save 100 billion, not 100 trillion.
(sarc)
I would like to know from the experts what the knock-on impact will be on efficiencies of scale for automotive and commercial fuel production, manufacturing suppliers, raw materials suppliers, 3rd-party replacement parts, service depots, and fueling stations for long-haul truckers and those of us who are not near urban centers when this urban utopia kicks in.
I can’t wait to see the farmers bicycling the food to market.
You think too much in terms of absolutes.
In some instances IC engines will still be very necessary. (Although you are perhaps correct to fear incompetent government and narrow minded bureaucrats, as it reminds me a bit of DDT bans, and the banning of certain CFCs).
All long-haul would be done by rail, connecting the urban centers. Urban centers would also become production centers and vice-versa. Those of us who are not near urban centers would be ordered to report or face criminal charges. Urban centers which become disruptive or no longer carry their weight would have their food and water cut off. Simple solutions to difficult problems.
dbstealey says: September 18, 2014 at 11:27 am Dudley says:
“…when demand increases too much, it is necessary to look to the very expensive cost of a subway. It has been often said that if the planners in Los Angeles had realised what the demand on the Blue Line would have grown to, they would have gone for a subway in the first place.”
And DBStealey chimed in with:
“You argue eloquently against the California so-called “bullet train”.
In fact I did not mention the ‘bullet train’. I don’t think anyone else has done so either. The entire tenor of my post was in regard to Urban Transport.
I am still amazed at the horrendous number of people who believe that those who wish to improve public transit are trying to force them out of their beloved cars. Where do they get these ideas from? I am not certain that any transit advocate in the USA, or elsewhere, has put forward any ideas of ‘forcing people out of cars’ Rather what they are trying to do is to provide a choice for people who wish to chose their means of transport. To give them an option different from “You will travel by car or you will not travel!” Call them libertarians or call them conservatives, choice is the American way of life, and to say YOU MUST GO BY CAR OR ELSE! is not the right way. Get a life!
Actually, the more offensive message from the transit-heroes is “Subsidize our lifestyle choice forever.” No mass transit pays for itself. All of them demand subsidies. Here in DFW the Dart moves nice middle to upper middle class people in near empty train cars subsidized by everyone else. I am all for mass transit that pays for itself. If it doesn’t please don’t ask me to pay for your lifestyle.
Dudley,
Relax, I wasn’t attacking you. I was attacking the ‘bullet train’. That’s on-topic, no? I meant that your arguments were useful regarding the bullet train fiasco.
*Sheesh*, you sound like a transit consultant I know! Sorry if I stepped on your toes. Didn’t mean to.
“…if governments require the strongest vehicle pollution controls and ultralow-sulfur fuels”
Ultra-low sulfur fuels are made from coal.
One of the most pernicious forms of environmental pollution is the deluge of unscientific BS that is poured into the media stream by CAGW fanatics, each bent on their own version of half-baked Eden. I am in Auroville, Tamil Naidu, where people with practical feet have walked the walk and turned a cattle-eroded desert wasteland into a thriving, forested, bird infested (they make so much noise in the morning) productive and verdant landscape. Boots on the ground, not boots in the street, if you want to make the world a better place.
The only true way to eliminate cars for 95% of commuting is to reengineer cities so that they are truely vertical. Then the commute to work would be down the elevator. No more driving required.
Yea, I can’t wait to see those bicycle cranes you will use to put up those skyscrapers
We’re talking about transportation, not construction. No one sensible is suggesting that the bicycle is anything other than what it is: a very economical way to get around that also contributes to good health and attractive physique.
With the US GDP at $16.80 trillion USD (2013) and world GDP at $71.83 trillion, we are talking about 17 months of world GDP to get that $100 trillion figure
“1,700 megatons of annual carbon dioxide (CO2)”
We need more CO2 not less! CO2 is PLANT FOOD and GREENING THE PLANETt. With two ocean cycles going to their cool phases, the Sun going into a Grand Minimum, and volcanic ash threatening to block out what little energy the Sun has to give, we have immediate and long term cooling for 30 to 130 years.
CO2 has been much higher for the vast majority of the last 600 million years and it is a lie that higher concentrations are harmful to any life of any kind.
Higher CO2 makes plants grow faster and use water and nutrients more efficiently. CO2 does none of the bad things they claim. No trace gas of any kind at any concentration in the atmosphere can warm the climate. In reality, CO2 and water vapor serve to cool the planet at night, helping to convert heat energy to IR radiation and sending it upward to space. That is why the evening air cools so rapidly when the Sun goes down.
No ocean acidification has been detected at all—any such claims are lies—as seawater is a complex buffer system that easily resists such a weak acid as carbonic acid. The coral reefs are thriving, despite the lies about their bleaching, which is only normal when they are switching their symbiotic algae with water temperature changes both up an down. Come back a few months after they bleach and they are colorful again.
And, natural gas and oil are renewable resources, now that we know that they come from the Earth’s core and are available anywhere that we drill deep enough. Russian scientists have been trying to tell us for years that gas and oil are abiotic and everywhere. This is a fantastic resource and can allow mankind to thrive, develop, live longer, and have the time, wealth, and resources to fix past environmental mistakes and not make new ones. The development of all the world’s countries are the cure to environmental problems. It is in the undeveloped countries that environmental problems thrive. Instead the radical environmentalists and the UN would like to lower our standard of living to that of North Korea, their poster child for “sustainable poverty, suffering and death” at the hands of evil and cruel masters.
The scam of insisting on decreasing CO2 emissions is simply part of the UN’s global scam to implement their Agenda 21, take over and cripple the world’s economies, and impose a One World Government that would have to be totalitarian and socialist. They want to enslave the world and retire the human race to an agrarian society, scratching a lousy existence by hand from the soil, with no machines, no livestock, and no guns. They want to force the world to be vegetarian when we are clearly 95% carnivore. Forcing us to be vegetarian ensures that mankind will suffer long term malnutrition, decrease 95% in population, and not be able to rebel against the masters. Remember, the UN plans to be the slave masters, with all powers over everyone. We will have a powerful elite lording over the slaves. How could that be good for anybody but those stinking rulers?
I was reading an article in Men’s Health Magazine while I waited in my doctor’s office. The article had to do with the cause of growing obesity worldwide in both humans and, it claimed, various species of animals. The writer speculated that CO2 was the cause. I didn’t get to finish the article as the nurse called my name. I could only shake my head and laugh. Is there nothing that CO2 can’t do? Lol.
Interesting. UC Davis has 4 times the “staff” as it has faculty?
The Leftist-Progressives-Fascist ruling class-wannabees are okay with this. Give the masses their mass transportation to their Yobs. And let the ruling elite class and Elon Musk and Tom Steyer billionaires have limos, private jets, and ski chalets in Aspen, Banff, and Zermatt.
Ultimately mineral resources are finite. Save the petrol for the private jets. Buses and trains can run electric.
They talk ‘gigatons’ because big words sound so impressive. They’d be laughed off stage if they admitted that CO2 represents 0.04% (400ppm) of atmospheric gases and the human contribution to that, from all causes, is 3-4% (12-16ppm). They obsess about a miniscule portion of a miniscule component of the atmosphere, without which all life on earth would cease. And which quite obviously has no effect on temperatures. I really think they need professional help.
Michael your point about the contribution is well taken: 15 ppm, let’s say. So to raise it to 1000 would be more than 60 times our present industrial age total. But we are supposed to be at peak oil already!
OK…ok we are not at peak oil, but 60 times more than we burned so far? Isn’t that the oil and coal of 20 or 30 earths?
Unless there are a heck of a lot of unsuspected resources lurking down there, we are not going to see 1000 ppm in a thousand years.
Not politically or perhaps environmentally or economically practical, but I can significantly decrease the fuel consumption of my 2010 Hyundai Sante Fe Limited V6 by 10 to 30% depending on wind and road conditions simply by avoiding ethanol blended fuels. That may be just for that vehicle, but I have been testing it off and on for about two years, winter and summer and the results are clear. I can pay 10 to 15 cents a litre more for fuel without ethanol and justify it soley on the lower overall cost of fuel. (with fuel price in Alberta at about 1.16 per litre for regular and 1.27 per litre for premium depending on the station. Here is a photo of a gas pump and ethanol contents:
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
This is the fuel consumption on premium fuel with no ethanol:
And this is the fuel consumption on regular fuel with up to 10% ethanol:
Now, these photos are an unfair test of only 135 km but I have done it on the same route from Red Deer, Alberta to Grand Forks, BC, several times and generally I get 15 to 20% better economy on premium fuel. Since premium fuel often costs only about 10% more (and sometimes less), for this particular automobile and in the test conditions it has been subject to, it is cost effective and I assume less polluting to avoid ethanol “enhanced” fuels.
On a recent 2000 km trip I used regular fuel going and premium fuel on the return and I travelled over a 7000 foot pass than I missed on the out trip. Going out was 10.5 litres per 100km, returning was 8.7 litres per hundred km or a 20% fuel saving:
Law of unintended consequence at work again. I also note that one refiner provides much more fuel efficient fuel than some others but that is up to people to figure out as many things enter into your choice of suppliers.
That’s probably why here in Australia, the fuel vendors charge up 20c/Litre more for premium grade over regular grade … and premium grade is recommended for most new cars nowadays so it can’t be a volume issue.
[Ethanol] fuels with their lower energy density and corrosion problems are an abomination. More so if they are made from corn.
You’ve done a nice job confirming what I learned in basic chemistry. Ethanol has about 17% fewer BTU’s(or whatever unit on energy you like) than pure petroleum chemicals. The main reason it is in fuels is the highly effective lobbies of the giant grain companies(ADM, Cargill, etc) who joined up with the greenies to turn food into fuel at great expense and no benefit to the air and at great cost to the economy. The big companies get big subsidies to keep the alcohol cheaper, and this year the EPA had to lower their planned EtOH requirement because it was simply unavailable. The subsidies are tapering off and no one thinks a new ethanol plant will be viable without them.
There is a useful, antipollutant reason for ethanol. It reduces NOx emissions, which are true smog-producing pollutants. Other chemicals can be used but alcohol has the advantage of being relatively non-toxic(although it ruins vehicles that were not designed to use it).
Logical: I think the energy loss is a bit more stark than 17%.
It is more like 33% less than gasoline:
http://zfacts.com/p/436.html
Gasoline:
http://www.appropedia.org/Energy_content_of_fuels
E85 fuel gives 15-25% less fuel mileage than gasoline.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml
We could solve the whole CAGW problem by requiring any ‘climate scientist’ to also have an advanced degree is statistics.
Actually, having an advanced degree in getting by like most blue collar and 2nd/3rd world people must often cures grandiosity. Let them live off the grid for a while.
Heck, let’s make it a reality program. We can call it “Rainbow Six x 4”. Voice-over “Deep in the heart of an unforgiving jungle, 2 dozen climate scientists will have to live with no power, no power tools, no industrial products, just their genius intelligence and the courage of their convictions.” I’d pay to watch that.
That would be precious! How would they travel to their deserted island? Kayaking I hope. Then we could see how smart they really are, just themselves against the elements. Gilligan’s Island with a full cast of Professors.
Love it!
That still wouldn’t stop the lying. Some would get even cagier at it. Better to introduce statistical analysis and logic training in high school for all. Most tricks undertaken by the climate scientists are pretty basic and can be found in “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff and ” Use and Abuse of Statistics” by W. J. Reichman. Both books are little gems and with some updating would be ideal study texts.
Mann had to drop out of his physics program… he’d never get through a statistics program.
Mark
It really is too bad central planners are congenitally incapable of learning from history.
Some of us learn, but the planners don’t listen, either. The Plan is all-important, and what you want is less than an inconvenience to the Planners.
Like most socialists, their excuse is always that not enough resources were put into the planning. With more money they would have succeeded.
They have learned. This is intentional. They have no intention of subjecting themselves or their families to “The Plan”.
They’re such idiots. That’s $100 trillion out of the global economy. People build cars, service cars, repair cars, etc… It’s a huge part of the world economy.
You are not thinking out of the box. That part of the economy could be replaced with something more useful. For instance, the Egyptians chose to build pyramids.
We could do that too.
It may be an uphill push getting people believing in god-kings again, but if they were paid a decent wage, they’d likely fake that bit.
The Egyptians used slaves to build the Pyramids- is that what you are advocating?
That was a bit tongue in cheek from me, but you do bring up another point.
They very likely were not slaves, although that may depend upon your definition of slavery. Most people go into construction work because they need the money, as I did when I was young. While perhaps some saw themselves as “wage slaves” I really enjoyed the hard physical work, and it seemed to me, so did most people on the sites.
http://news.discovery.com/history/ancient-egypt/pyramids-tombs-giza-egypt.htm
I’d just like to see the emerging Chinese and Indian middle classes give up their new-found status symbols !
As usual, the west seems hell-bent on self-destruction and implosion whilst the remainder of the world carry on regardless. Rethink Kyoto anyone?
Andi