Peak Oil Alarm, Energy Crisis, Renewable Hype: A 100 Year Old Scare
Most people today know Arrhenius as the ‘father of global warming’ due to his 1896 publication of On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground which became the cornerstone work for global warming theory today. Robert Rhode, who setup the Global Warming Art website (and also BEST), made the paper available online wrote of it:
Arrhenius’s paper is the first to quantify the contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect (Sections I-IV) and to speculate about whether variations in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide have contributed to long-term variations in climate (Section V). Throughout this paper, Arrhenius refers to carbon dioxide as “carbonic acid” in accordance with the convention at the time he was writing.Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming, though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does explicitly suggest this outcome in later work.
It was surprising to encounter a book by Svante Arrhenius published in 1919 which contains many very current-sounding ideas on energy topics. Although Svante Arrhenius showed great foresight in many of his comments on energy, he was wrong in some of his most important predictions: America will run out of oil by 1953 at the latest. Coal reserves will be depleted in England within 50 years and in America within 150 years. –Charles G. Moseley, Journal of Chemical Education 55(3) 1978
That so great a scientist as Svante Arrhenius could badly overestimate the energy problems of his time suggests that we should perhaps place more emphasis on using technology to solve our energy problems and less emphasis on bemoaning the difficulty of the problem. –Charles G. Moseley, Journal of Chemical Education 55(3) 1978
Although Svante Arrhenius showed great foresight in many of his comments on energy in 1919, he was wrong in some of his most important predictions: America will run out of oil by 1953 at the latest. Coal reserves will be depleted in England within 50 years and in America within 150 years.
For most of us the concept of an energy crisis dates primarily from the oil embargo established by the Arab nations against many of the western nations in 1973. Who can forget the long lines at service stations and the increases in gasoline and chemical prices which soon resulted? Thus, it was surprising to the author to encounter a book by Svante Arrhenius (famous for his theory of ionization of acids, bases, and salts in water) published in 1919 (and in 1925 in English translation[1]) which contains many very current-sounding ideas on energy topics. He mentions the following energy-related problems:
* Some oil fields are already depleted, and known petroleum reserves will last only a short time.
* Known coal reserves will last longer but are certainly finite.
* Burning large amounts of fossil fuels will increase the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and possibly cause adverse climate changes.
* No really adequate battery exists for use in electric vehicles or for storing energy derived from the sun, wind , or water.
The book also contains the following proposals to help solve the predicted energy crisis:
* Institute stringent conservation programs to reduce consumption of coal and oil.
* Replace all lights which utilize petroleum products with electric lights.
* Push development of water, wind, and solar energy sources.
* Develop more efficient fossil fuel powered engines.
* Utilize alcohol derived from plant sources as a fuel to replace oil and coal.
* Develop more efficient methods to transport coal and utilize its energy content.
* Study atomic energy for possible future use.
Although Arrhenius obviously showed great foresight in many of his comments on energy, he was far from correct in some of his most important predictions. Examples are: America will run out of oil by 1953 at the latest. Coal reserves will be depleted in England within 50 years and in America within 150 years.
There are at least two lessons which can be derived from this very interesting book. One is that our energy problems are not really new (although they may, of course, be more acute at some times than at others). Providing sufficient reasonably priced energy for our needs has always been a challenge and will likely continue to be so. Another lesson is that it is very easy to underestimate our ability to solve or at least alleviate our energy problems. That so great a scientist as Svante Arrhenius could badly overestimate the energy problems of his time suggests that we should perhaps place more emphasis on using technology to solve our energy problems and less emphasis on bemoaning the difficulty of the problem.
Footnote 1: Arrhenius, Svante A., and Leonard, Clifford S. (Translator), Chemistry in Modern Life, D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, 1925.
From: Charles G. Moseley, Journal of Chemical Education, 55(3) 1978
– See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/svante-arrhenius-an-early-prophet-of-the-energy-crisis/#sthash.KAB4gnBe.dpuf
In addition to being wrong about energy predictions, it should also be noted that there is this entry in Wikipedia that highlights another great failing of Arrhenius:
Svante Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been proposed as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909.
Ouch – global warming, energy crisis, AND Eugenics?
Although Svante Arrhenius showed great foresight in many of his comments on energy in 1919, he was wrong in some of his most important predictions: America will run out of oil by 1953 at the latest. Coal reserves will be depleted in England within 50 years and in America within 150 years.
Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was the first peak oil alarmist and the first scientist to calculate how changes in the levels of atmospheric CO2 could alter the surface temperature due to the greenhouse effect. Photo Wikipedia
For most of us the concept of an energy crisis dates primarily from the oil embargo established by the Arab nations against many of the western nations in 1973. Who can forget the long lines at service stations and the increases in gasoline and chemical prices which soon resulted? Thus, it was surprising to the author to encounter a book by Svante Arrhenius (famous for his theory of ionization of acids, bases, and salts in water) published in 1919 (and in 1925 in English translation[1]) which contains many very current-sounding ideas on energy topics. He mentions the following energy-related problems:
* Some oil fields are already depleted, and known petroleum reserves will last only a short time.
* Known coal reserves will last longer but are certainly finite.
* Burning large amounts of fossil fuels will increase the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and possibly cause adverse climate changes.
* No really adequate battery exists for use in electric vehicles or for storing energy derived from the sun, wind , or water.
The book also contains the following proposals to help solve the predicted energy crisis:
* Institute stringent conservation programs to reduce consumption of coal and oil.
* Replace all lights which utilize petroleum products with electric lights.
* Push development of water, wind, and solar energy sources.
* Develop more efficient fossil fuel powered engines.
* Utilize alcohol derived from plant sources as a fuel to replace oil and coal.
* Develop more efficient methods to transport coal and utilize its energy content.
* Study atomic energy for possible future use.
Although Arrhenius obviously showed great foresight in many of his comments on energy, he was far from correct in some of his most important predictions. Examples are: America will run out of oil by 1953 at the latest. Coal reserves will be depleted in England within 50 years and in America within 150 years.
There are at least two lessons which can be derived from this very interesting book. One is that our energy problems are not really new (although they may, of course, be more acute at some times than at others). Providing sufficient reasonably priced energy for our needs has always been a challenge and will likely continue to be so. Another lesson is that it is very easy to underestimate our ability to solve or at least alleviate our energy problems. That so great a scientist as Svante Arrhenius could badly overestimate the energy problems of his time suggests that we should perhaps place more emphasis on using technology to solve our energy problems and less emphasis on bemoaning the difficulty of the problem.
Footnote 1: Arrhenius, Svante A., and Leonard, Clifford S. (Translator), Chemistry in Modern Life, D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, 1925.
From: Charles G. Moseley, Journal of Chemical Education, 55(3) 1978
– See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/svante-arrhenius-an-early-prophet-of-the-energy-crisis/#sthash.KAB4gnBe.dpuf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yet another bashing of scientists and science by WUWT, continuing in its tradition of anti-science nit picking, data distortion, and failure to understand the research. Why would anyone want to listen to them?
Warren:
It is the Carbonari Mafia who are anti-scientist, indeed gleefully destroying the reputation of science through their corrupt trashing of the scientific method.
Skeptics are pro-science.
Yet another call to uncritically accept anything said by any so called climate scientist. You must be telling us that you fully accept and are supportive of Arrhenius’ ideas on racial biology.
Why would anyone want to listen to you?
warrenlb,
I was just over at my favourite moon-landing-hoax, 9-11-inside-job, kem-trayl site and there was no sign of you. If you waste your time here, you’re not going to be able to set everyone straight. I think you’ve done what you can.
Why would you keep coming back to troll?
he’s a paid shill of the Green Blob … his job is to disrupt, mislead, and generally create confusion which is what he does to himself.
is there a problem with nit-picking anti-science?
I would have preferred commentary based on the idea that the science has gotten better than 1896, and there are some references noting Arrhenius’s estimates were pretty good, all things considered.
OTOH, I have no trouble criticizing people who hold up Arrhenius as a god among climatologists, but for the most part I have better things to do….
warrenlb, et al wants sceptics to IGNORE failed predictions just like the failed predictions of climastrology. What’s the point of doing that? When Einstein made predictions people rightfully wanted to test / observe them. What’s wrong with that?
Maybe we should start referring to those failed predictions as “Warmoscopes?”
Warren:
You are so FOS your eyes are brown.
Warren;
does the name Willy Soon mean anything to you? I think I read a couple of posts you wrote about him if I am not mistaken, or was that a different TROLL?
A guy committing fraud is your hero? Sounds right.
warrenlb,
So you know about Michael Mann, eh?
Warren
The only fraud here is you. Every other post you make is self contradicting. I don’t know why someone would waist their timing paying you to Troll you stink at it.
And just to be clear Warren, you are my hero.
As a Darwinian I’m not at all embarrassed to admit that Darwinian science led to the Holocaust. While Charles would have nothing to do with eugenics his son Leonard certainly did: https://huxwelliantimes.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/major-leonard-darwins-forgotten-role-in-the-eugenic-revolution/
That Russell Wallace, Darwin’s fellow traveler, was antisemitic has little bearing on the question since age old antisemitism (of Christian or whatever provenance) per se, was largely irrelevant–antisemitism was more pronounced in France than in Germany, and like poverty, is always with us.
Modern junk historians like to blame the Shoah on Christian antisemitism, e.g., http://www.menorahreview.org/article.aspx?id=1
but holding up Chrysostom as a type is like taking G B Shaw’s advocacy of eugenic gas chambers literally.
Ellis Rivkin set the standard a half century ago, showing that Jewish persecution invariably coincided with economic stress or political turmoil, arguing that developing capitalism was the only effective emancipator of Jewry. Accordingly any successful radical environmental antagonism toward free enterprise would be expected to encourage antisemitism, and we may be already witnessing such a prospect (oy vey). Carbon credits? Romany beware.
At any rate, the universal acceptance of militant eugenics early in the 20th century is probably the closest analog to modern climate hysteria. 97% of the intellectual elite (no poll available) were dupes and propagators of junk science. –AGF
Many scientist and leftist are still elitist and still think the same, they just want to exterminate billions by destroying all the great achievements of the modern free market societies to save mother earth from the evil human scourge. Of course they them selves would be saved as the good stewards who are the only ones that really care about mother earth.
Really no one should be too surprised by the eugenics/social darwinist connection. The Club of Rome was not born in an intellectual vacuum. Wells, Orwell and Huxley all prove that the salons of Europe were alive with “scientific” prediction of the ghastly prospects for humanity. Truly the sad thing is that modern environmentalists generally have no clue that the intellectual progenitors of their world view usually understood clearly the moral and social consequences of “zero growth” and that a sometimes not so friendly dictatorship is really the only practical solution to the resistance to these ideas.
flooding first world countries with 3rd world immigrants doesn’t help the green agenda
Straight edge forecasting of oil depletion gets them every time. The most it shows is the low price for bad predictions, then and now.
Re: WUWT Arrhenius, 3/11/2015
He who controls the vocabulary wins the argument. The public dialog is about Anthropogenic Global Warming, Anthropogenic CO2, and Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect. To mislead, confuse, and obfuscate, the proponents of the AGW movement abbreviate the phrases to the unarguable and ambiguous forms of global warming, atmospheric CO2, and the misnomer greenhouse effect. We have heat trapped, and equilibrium confused with thermodynamic equilibrium. IPCC converts cloud effects into the greenhouse effect of clouds, leaving cloud albedo on the cutting room floor.
If we don’t use the correct terminology, the attributions among causes and effects, and to honored scientists, are meaningless. According to the original terminology, Guy Callendar is the father of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Before politics ruled the science, climatologists called the greenhouse effect the Callendar Effect.
This problem from imprecise terminology distorts our perspective of Arrhenius on energy. Compare
For most of us the concept of an energy crisis dates primarily from the oil embargo established by the Arab nations against many of the western nations in 1973. Who can forget the long lines at service stations and the increases in gasoline and chemical prices which soon resulted?
with
Providing sufficient reasonably priced energy for our needs has always been a challenge and will likely continue to be so.
The long lines at the service stations were caused by the US running out of 39¢-a-gallon gasoline. Instead of embargoing Opec exports to maintain revenue-neutral trade with the cartel, Richard Nixon foolishly put controls on domestic prices. Later Clinton would compound the problem by approving equally foolish rules for low-sulfur gasoline that could be easily met with existing refineries by raising import standards to a lighter, sweeter, and far more expensive crude, and passing the costs on to consumers.
It’s economic ignorance. Governments burn confiscated ivory and street drugs, driving prices up and encouraging traders to take ever more risk. Instead, governments should cleanse these products, and put them back on the market at cost to destroy the trade they want stopped.
Arrhenius made predictions about the availability of energy at least ignoring, and maybe ignorant of, the trade-offs between price, benefits, and availability. In 1896, crude was $1.18 per 42-gallon barrel. We would have run out by 1953 as he predicted if prices hadn’t risen 1.53%/yr to $2.80 (nominal) a barrel. We’d have run out again long before 2008 if it hadn’t risen 8%/yr to $134 (nominal) a barrel by 2008, a bubble that burst along with the criminal bond-rating bubble. Inflated energy prices had the two-pronged effect of making shale oil and fracking technology practical, cutting prices to about $50 (nominal), and turning the US from an importer to a major supplier of crude (and the world’s leading source of natural gas).
From A Basic History of Acid—From Aristotle to Arnold:
This story and comments about concerns of shortages of energy by brilliant people who could not see a way out of the dilemma reminds me of the story about wheels on luggage. Just think of all the brilliant engineers, physicist ,and inventors that traveled to important meetings for hundreds of years where they rode in wheeled vehicles to discuss world crisis problems. They shurely had aching hand, arms and shoulders. None of them thought of putting wheels on their luggage. No new material technology, no new technology at all was required. Early attempts with small wheels on conventional luggage were not good. The problem was tough but finally Robert Plath, an airline pilot, in 1987 got it right.
Robert Plath: because Roller Blades?
“Hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s laboratory!”
–advertisement for “Kier’s Rock Oil,” 1855
“. . . the United States [has] enough petroleum to keep its kerosene lamps burning for only four years . . . ”
–Pennsylvania State Geologist Wrigley, 1874
“. . . although an estimated two-thirds of our reserve is still in the ground, . . . the peak of [U.S.] production will soon be
passed–possibly within three years.”
–David White, Chief Geologist, USGS, 1919
” . . . it is unsafe to rest in the assurance that plenty of petroleum will be found in the future merely because it has been in the past.”
–L. Snider and B. Brooks, AAPG Bulletin, 1936
Rob Dawg,
We should add that if it were not for fossil fuels like petroleum, the world’s whale population wouldn’t merely be decimated. It would be destroyed more thoroughly than the American Bison was. Most whale species would be extict.
And of course the great horse manure crisis was solved — again by fossil fuels.
The misguided people who want to demonize ‘carbon’ have no idea of how much that same CO2-emitting fuel has improved everyone’s life. They are truly know-nothings, who have no idea about the real world, or cost/benefit analysis.
Probably I drift off-topic. I knew a guy who was really so much brighter than me and a lot brighter than anybody I knew. He was able to put a person at ease immediately by a choice of words, everybody wanted to be his friend and he was successful in all his enterprises. He’s gone now. He made me wonder; ” Does there exist in this world humans that are so bright that they are able effortlessly to charm, that can comprehend everything and foresee economic, political and social changes even to manipulate global events ?”
and then I look at for example the behavior of the UK government and I think ” These people do not have a clue what they are doing “
I’m back.
You’re the UK government?????
🙂
My theory is that the UK government is largely staffed with descendents of WWI soldiers who were gassed with mutagenic substances by the Germans.
That DOES explain a lot ! Applicable to the politicians as well.
you knew Bill Buckley?
Not sure why this is suddenly news… I have posted extensively about the fact that global warming is just a modern day version of eugenics. Eugenics has been around far longer then the codified version that was put in place in the 1860-1930s. It can be easily traced back to plato’s time and even before with some effort. Eugenics is a branch of socialism that all socialists believe in, the goal of eugenics has always been the same…. how to fix the problem of humans and thus in turn make socialism successful. By creating “better” humans the utopia of socialism can be achieved.
Eugenics is being used by the UN currently to “control” “population growth”, “resource management” and so forth…. aka the excuse of doom(in this case global warming the popular doom of the day) is used to justify imposing eugenics and socialism. You’ll note the fix for every doom is massive government that restricts freedom aka socialism. The problems are always the same and the “fixes” are always the same…. and the “fixes” have never worked… yet they kept being put forward.
Like all socialists ideas it fixes everything we just need to all embrace it….sure that means some people have to embrace an oven or dirt in a mass grave but think of the children!!!!
“Although [Svante] Arrhenius [obviously] showed great foresight in many of his comments on energy…” = repeated paragraph, with edits.
For those looking for the 1906 Arrhenius paper where he corrected some of his assumptions of his 1896 manuscript, both the original German and a recent English translation can be found at the Friends of Science web site.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius1906.pdf
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
Another Fred from Cannuckistan
Given that in his life Svante August Arrhenius (1859–1927) calculated that increases in atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels would / should cause global warming, it is reasonable to ask what has happened in the Earth Atmospheric System (EAS).
There is a reasonable case for the period of the last ~165 yrs (starting ~1850) that the absolute temperature of the EAS has not unambiguously changed outside of the range of variations seen in absolute EAS temperature for the period prior to ~1850.
It looks to me as reasonable to say that Arrhenius may arguably be correct in identifying a valid component of the EAS behavior, but it also looks reasonable to me that the increase in temps he predicted are not effectively / unambiguously realized by corroborated objective observations of the EAS. Therefore there does not look to be a reasonable case for significant risk of GW from CO2 by burning fossil fuel.
John
Is this some sort of joke by GWPF?
He said “Study atomic energy for possible future use.” in 1926? Nuclear fission wasn’t discovered until the 1930s using cyclotrons. Practical fission developed in the early 40s.
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was published in 1905, the General Theory of Relativity in 1915.
John
Eugenics is alive and well it’s just been rebranded. However no matter what genetic manipulation we do to unborn foetuses it’s all for nothing once we make them autistic.
What’s wrong with eugenics, again? Is there anyone here who wants to die of heart disease at 35 or have hemophilia?
That raises the question “Who wants to live to be 347 years old?”
Also, should we incorporate cheetah genes into our off-spring so they can run really fast and break records? You know how excited we get about breaking records.
With chicken genes, we could eat our own omelettes. Sorry!
Usually, we don’t find out what’s wrong with an idea until we try it.
Thanks. Breeding matters. Unfortunately, the time for grownup discussions has not arrived.
tabnumlock asks:
What’s wrong with eugenics, again?
The problem is, as always, government. Can you think of any governments that have used eugenics as a political weapon? I mean, other than Germany, Japan, China, Russia, etc., etc?
In theory it may be OK. But in practice, we need to remember Niccolo Machiavelli’s dictum:
Men are evil unless compelled to be good.
Who is going to compel the U.S. government? Or the UN? Or Russia? Or China?
They are run by men, and the most evil ones seem to always get hold of the levers of power. Do you recall the serious suggestions of politicians and others that the world’s population must be reduced to 500 million? But none of them ever volunteer to lead the way. That leaves you and me. Do you really want to give them that power?
Tab
yes I would rather die at 35 then in utero.
Eric Gisin –
could this be explain the mention of “atomic energy” ?
PDF: SVANTE AR R H E N I U S: Development of the theory of electrolytic dissociation*
Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1903
I have now described how theories of electrical dissociation have developed from our old ideas about atoms and molecules. We sometimes hear the objection raised, that this viewpoint is perhaps not correct, but only a useful, substituting working hypothesis.
This objection is in fact not an objection at all, for we can never be certain that we have found the ultimate truth. Theories of molecules and atoms are sometimes attacked on philosophic grounds. Until a better and more satisfactory theory appears, chemists can continue to use the atomic theory with complete confidence. The position is exactly the same as regards electrolytic dissociation.
This theory has also shown us that atoms or groups of atoms charged with electricity play a highly significant part in the world of chemistry…
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1903/arrhenius-lecture.pdf
Thank goodness he got it wrong lest all your mummys turn to black ooze-
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/if_only_we_still_had_a_carbon_tax/
Another one to add to Swindler’s List-
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
Bob Boder
Interesting question. Not certain I have the answer, but that’s not the point. CO2 doesn’t really hold energy.
As I understand it: LWIR (long wave infrared radiation) rises from the surface (land & water) which has been warmed by visible and SWIR (short wave) from the sun. CO2 molecules absorb this LWIR energy which shakes/rattles/rotates those molecules and knocks electrons out of orbits. That takes energy.
The molecules re-emit a lower energy: incoming LWIR minus the molecule’s work function = the re-emitted lower energy (back radiation) possibly in the microwave range. (Albert’s Nobel prize photo electric effect.) CO2 can’t re-emit LWIR because that would mean a 100% energy conversion which is not possible.
The climate $cienti$t$ theory is that CO2 molecules are back-radiating LWIR (They can’t re-emit LWIR and have to heat up H20 w/ microwaves) to the surface (lots of contentious discussion about how/whether it really works like this). So with more CO2 there is more energy back radiating, less reaching the ToA (top of atmosphere) upsetting the balance, more heat stays at the earth’s surface/in the atmosphere raising the global temperature, melting sea ice/sheets/caps, raising sea levels, ……..
Well, the pause kind of put a big crimp in that theory.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/almost-30-years-after-hansens-1988-alarm-on-global-warming-a-claim-of-confirmation-on-co2-forcing/
“Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of !!0.2 Watts per square meter per decade!!. This increase is about !! ten percent !! of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as !!clouds and water vapor.!!” Annotations by me.
0.2 W/m-2 per decade! That’s ten years. One of the most popular global heat balance diagrams has ToA incoming solar energy at 342 W/m-2 per year!!! That’s 3,420 W/m-2 per decade!!! Kind of makes CO2 look like a bee fart in a hurricane. 0.00585% Whoeeee!
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
Nick,
They really measured LWIR from the CO2 band and they measured LWIR from water vapor and clouds. CO2 was 10% of the trend, water vapor and clouds were 90% of the trend… The LWIR from CO2 is in a distinct band where water vapor is not active. The absorbed and emitted IR has exactly the same amount of energy, as there is no loss of energy within a molecule.
If there are collisions between CO2 and other molecules in the atmosphere before CO2 loses its extra energy via a photon, the energy may be transferred as an increased vibration/”temperature” of the other molecules. The opposite may happen too: collisions of other molecules with CO2 which excites the CO2 molecule that then emits a photon…
Arrhenius did get a well deserved Nobel prize in chemistry, well deserved Kudos.
But, the medical “doctor” that “perfected” the lobotomy “operation” also won a Nobel prize in “medicine”.
I guess you could call shoving a screwdriver up someones eye socket, swiping it back and forth rapidly to sever delicate nerve connections an “operation”, if you are a sadist….
Just cause somebody got a “prize” does not make them “correct”.
Time will tell who is correct, and who is not.
Cheers, KevinK.
***a dynasty of sorts:
Nov 2010: UK Register: Andrew Orlowski: Music biz vows to end CD scandal
Go digital, save a polar bear’s toenail
Each year UK record labels send out 25,000 promo CDs. In new research
released today it is estimated that the manufacturing, packaging and
transportation of these deadly items creates 1,686 tonnes of carbon
dioxide…
Switching all promos to digital delivery would save 240 tonnes.
Just to put that in perspective, underground wildfires in China produce up
to 450 million tonnes of CO2 a year. The amount of CO2 produced by new build
coal power stations around the world, which help millions of people out of
poverty, is around 500 megatonnes a year. Total CO2 emissions from coal are
5,814 billion tonnes of CO2 , rising to 6,820 in 2035. In other words, we
could turn all the world’s coal power stations off for about
twelve milliseconds…
***The research was carried out by Alison Tickell for her music business
environmentalist group Julie’s Bicycle. Tickell is a member of a global
warming dynasty. Her brother Oliver earns royalties from carbon offsetting,
while her father, the former diplomat Sir Crispin Charles Cervantes Tickell,
is credited with convincing British PM Margaret Thatcher of the hypothesis
of catastrophic man-made global warming in the late 1980s. By 2003, Thatcher
appears to have recanted – and in her memoir Statecraft doubted the warnings
of politically-motivated “doomsters” and described their
anti-industrialisation policies as “costly and futile”.
***Tickell Snr is a patron of the Optimal Population Trust and made an ominous
prediction to an interviewer last year: “It’s one animal species out of
control,” he said – meaning us, “and the awful thing is that if we don’t
control it then Mother Nature will do it for us.”…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2010/11/01/music_business_promo_discs_cause_global_warming/
on Alison Tickell’s FB page on the recent, poorly-attended “Time to Act” on climate change protest in London & an event at the Whitworth Art Gallery organised by Alison Tickell/Julie’s Bicycle, featuring John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich’s co-author of “Abortion and Morality” & “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions”:
Julie’s Bicycle Facebook: March with us on Sat for #TimetoAct2015.
We’ll be in the #FossilFree bloc
Read John Holden’s ‘The Ecology of Culture’ and come see him
speak at the @Whitworth…
Jan 2010: Guardian: Don’t let the carbon market die by Oliver Tickell
Some people have good reason to be shocked that banks have pulled out of the carbon market, not least recent economics graduates whose dissertations on carbon finance now qualify them only for unemployment. And JP Morgan, which paid a jaw-splitting $204m for carbon trader Ecosecurities last September, must be feeling a little sore. Perhaps it relied on the GHG Emissions Credit Trading report (yours for a mere $397), which predicts a $4.5 trillion carbon market by 2020…
No less chagrined must be Gordon Brown, who sees the carbon market as key to the global response to climate change, and to the economic fortunes of the City of London…
Over time the carbon tax should rise – or, better still, be replaced with a more sophisticated economic mechanism based on the auction of carbon permits, subject to a reserve price, as set out in my “Kyoto2” framework. But a simple, modest carbon tax is surely the best first step we can take towards getting there. As well as raising much-needed funds to finance climate solutions, it would also send an important signal to companies and investors – that long-term investments in clean energy, energy efficiency and a low carbon future will be rewarded: something that today’s boom-and-bust carbon markets have failed to achieve.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jan/25/carbon-market-copenhagen-climate
from a Kyoto2 Book Review page:
Kyoto2 – The Book
How to Manage the Global Greenhouse by Oliver Tickell
Reviews:
Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, concluding “Words of warming” in The Guardian, Saturday 9 August 2008:
Tickell’s discussion of market mechanisms is densely technical, yet much of it reads as common sense. His emphasis on the urgent need for government regulation is also cogent and refreshing, for he recognises that carbon trading is necessary, but not sufficient to solve the problem. He calls clearly for governments to regulate so as to increase efficiency of energy use, to protect forests and to mandate approaches such as clean coal technologies, as well as discussing the need to limit population.
such a lovable bunch!
Well it’s more like soccer balls at ToA, ping pong balls up from the surface, and BBs out of the CO2 molecules.
Settled science, according to the American Meteorological Society’s 1951 Compendium of Meteorology:
“Carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave radiation and so helps to maintain the temperature of the earth’s surface above that at which it would otherwise be in equilibrium with solar radiation. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must have varied greatly during geological time, being depleted by the formation of limestones (carbonates) and coal measures, and replenished by volcanic action. Ordinarily the variation was slow, because a great reserve of CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. Arrhenius and Chamberlin saw in this a cause of climatic changes, but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapour.“
Here is a Papers past on him. Note what the Co2 level is at the time.
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=NOT19100416.2.32.24&srpos=1&e=——-100–1—-0arrhenius+carbon
The very brightest of lights always have the darkest shadows.