I would like honest answers about CO2 emission reductions?

Q1: Technically yes. Politically no. Most likely no. Developed countries? Yes. Personally I'm starting to think the political aim of 450ppm stabilisation is impossible. Slight growth in CO2 emissions, followed by falling total from 2020 or 2030 would be 500-550ppm which I'm now thinking is more sensible.

Q2: Yes. But politically unlikely. Stabilisation between 2020-2030 followed by falling seems realistic.

Q3: Peaking 2020-30, declining thereafter yes. Short term would be new generations of nuclear power and wind. In about 5 years start exploding solar power. In about 10, marine power. Continue to expand biomass and hydro. e.g. the UK could likely switch to 40% nuclear, 30% renewable, 30% fossil by 2020 and CO2 from electricity would be down by 60%. The Prius emits 45% less CO2 than the average UK car: by 2020 a 30% cut in all vehicles is not unreasonable (with the grid mix, electric cars would each be 85% cleaner than current combustion ones). Efficiency would also help constrain demand: 30% cut in transport + 60% cut in electricity + efficiency + some biofuel for planes and ships = 30% overall emissions cuts, consistent with global stabilisation between 2020-30 and a 500-550ppm target.

Q4: Eh? It's important enough to justify trying. Economic analyses (e.g. Nordhaus 2009 DICE model) suggest that the cost of action to limit warming to just under 3C is economically optimal; i.e.a better economic investment than no action. The risks of worst case business as usual (heading to 1,000ppm) would be a significant near extinction risk for humans, and restricting growth a bit would have negligible costs.

Q5: If climate wasn't affected by CO2 then no, there would be no point cutting CO2. Some policies that cut CO2 have co-benefits (e.g. energy efficiency reduces air pollution and resource depletion), but they should be dealt with separately.

Well, you made a mistake right out of the gate. The purpose of catalytic converters is to convert harmful exhaust emissions, not to increase efficiency. In fact they generally reduce efficiency by creating back-pressure in the exhaust system. That is bad because an internal combustion engine is basically an air pump. The reason that they only 'generally' reduce efficiency is that *some* back pressure is a good thing, so a properly designed exhaust system won't necessarily suffer from having a catalytic converter installed. This is one of the reasons that in newer cars, you will actually *hurt* the car's performance by hacking out the cat. and putting in a test pipe** or whatever.

Question 1:

Yes, absolutely. How much less energy does a new tankless water heater use than a big ol' 40 gal tank from 25 years ago? How much better are the insulating systems that go into new homes? How much more efficient is a car with 150 hp today than in oh, say 1980? I'd guess about double on that one... If we keep pushing the tech forward with *efficiency* strongly in mind, then it's pretty easy. When energy was cheap, it was easy to just give a rat's *** about energy consumption.

Question 2:

Of course. That's far more likely anyway. The thing that needs to happen in that scenario though is that the energy doesn't come primarily from burning fossil fuels. Adding wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal, etc. to the equation and finding a way to buffer the less consistent sources (wind and solar) so that stress isn't put on what's left of the fossil fuel plants (since they are inefficient to power up and down) are important. I'd also throw in that nuclear power would be a *very* useful thing to cultivate for the very near future.

Question 3:

Of course it is. The tech is already available and has been for years and years. Cheap gas kept it from becoming anything 'til recently, so now we're scrambling. It's pretty sad from the point of view of a technology enthusiast.

Question 4:

Yes. There is no possibility of success if you fail outright by not even trying. There has already been success, and it's easy to measure.

Question 5:

Reducing CO2 emissions is a great idea since much of it comes from the burning of fossil fuels for which we are dependent on other (unstable/hostile) nations. One of the main ways to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce our consumption of oil which reduces our need to deal with these nations and increases our national security and increases our financial stability by reducing our trade deficit.

Farther out than a few decades I would like to see energy so abundant that it's costs are negligible to people and only slightly less so to industry. I'd also like to see 100% energy independence for not just the US, but all nations. One less reason to deal with stupid wars.

_

1. Yes. Stop making so many babies. A woman will increase her carbon footprint, if such a thing actually mattered, 20 times by having a baby.

2. Yes. All of our "stuff" is the most energy efficient it has ever been. There's just more of us with more "stuff" than ever. Improving energy efficiency and conserving energy in a truly effective manner can reduce current demand substantially. The trouble is often the "cure" is worse than the "disease." The very products and actions we often take to curb energy usage have negative effects.

3. 15 to 20% is not modest, it's drastic.

4. Not trying gets you nowhere. You gauge success by results. As for importance see number 5.

5. No, but it isn't that simple. Conserving energy is always good, for all of us. It brings the cost down and availability up. Targeting CO2 isn't the best way to achieve that. By placing artificial regulations over energy consumption humanity suffers, people will die.

Catalytic converters reduce energy efficiency.

The bottom line is if we reduce energy usage through efficiency and reduction in demand CO2 emissions decrease by default. If we place mandates forcing a reduction in CO2 emissions without increases in efficiency and viable energy alternatives our standard of living drops, people will die.

Probably. Oil companies and coal companies are not generally connected, by the way. You have to consider that cap-and-trade is not an isolated piece of legislation. For one thing, in the proposed bill there are provisions which invest in alternative fuel and renewable energy technology research and implementation. In other words, the oil and coal companies aren't just dealing with a price on carbon that they can just pass along to their consumers. They're also dealing with the emergence of electric cars and renewable energy options. If they raise their prices too much, people will have alternatives and go elsewhere. A lot of people are already consuming less gas by buying hybrids, driving less, etc. As for coal, the bill also has a requirement that utilities get 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. There are going to be very few new coal plants built in the future, so I don't think there's any question that the coal industry will take a hit in profits, which will be passed on to the renewable energy industry. I'm sure it will be a combination where they pass some costs to the consumer and also take a hit in their massive profit margins. But it won't be like gas prices will suddenly skyrocket to $5/gallon or energy prices to 25 cents per kWh. If you raise prices, you also lower demand.

Good answer by Dana. It's not an either/or thing. Energy efficiency and replacement of fossil fuel sources with non-fossil-based energy can be done at the same time.

1. Yes. Population will grow, causing more energy demand. Energy efficiency in both buildings and transportation could potentially more than offset that. For example, plug-in hybrids could potentially get 2-3 times more bang for the buck in energy consumption than traditional cars. This covers both avenues of reducing emissions - replacing oil with utility-based energy and improving efficiency (less energy to charge a battery). CFLs alone can reduce your electrical bill 10% or more. I speak from experience. Simple changes have lowered by electricity consumption by 20% over the past few years. If my house was older, the potential would be even greater. The more incentives there is for energy efficiency, the more likely there are to be more breakthroughs in technology. Decoupling utility profits from energy usage should be a national mechanism.

2. Yes. Similar to #1.

3. Yes. DoE estimates 20% wind is possible in the U.S. within 15-20 years. Some estimate more. Nuclear and solar can make a significant dent. CCS is a possibility, but coal is going out of style these days, for many reasons. Lots of potential in transportation.

4. Yes. Even if today's technology would make achieving, say, an 80% reduction of emissions in 40 years difficult, putting strong incentives in place improves the chances of technology improvements, which results in lower costs and an improved chance of success. This worked with acid rain, CFCs, etc..

5. Of course. Coal is extremely harmful and risky from both a production and consumption view, independent of global warming. Oil is environmentally harmful and addiction to it brings along national security and economic risks and costs, that aren't directly factored into the price at the pump.

Question 1: Can you conceive of a scenario where man could reduce his overall energy consumption in the coming decades? We could increase efficiency. I think if you look at our overall energy consumption, it has steadily increased as we found ways to make our life simpler. We have better TVs, computers, cars, washing machines, lawn mowers, motorcycles, etc. These items will become more efficient but there is still room for growth.

Question 2: Can you conceive of a scenario where man could maintain the current overall energy consumption for the next few decades? I think a economic downturn might force it on us. That seems to be in Obama Pelosi Reids plans or they are just too stupid to steer us toward prosperity. The problem is, they are leftists and they fear and loath prosperity. They tend to be anti-capitalistic and feel it is unfair that we have so much prosperity. They tend to like to equalize the disparity between us and other countries (or rich and poor) by lowering the haves rather than uplifting the have nots.

Question 3: Is it even possible to make modest CO2 emission reduction like 15-20% and expect other technologies (and/or efficiency improvements) to fill the gap? Over how many years? It might be for the US but developing countries might like to have washing machines too and cars and computers.

Question 4: Do you feel it is too important not to even try regardless of the probability of success? How would you guage any such success? I am all for efficiency. I wouldn't gauge it by frantically looking at the thermometer.

Question 5: Do you feel that reducing CO2 emissions is a good idea even if doesn't have any appreciable effect on the Earth's climate (in other words, it would be good for other reasons)?

Sure. I am all for efficiency. I am confident that one day we will move beyond fossil fuel technology.

First of all the easy way to reduce CO2 emissions is to provide public transportation to where people want to go 24 hours a day. Buses should run every hour 6AM to 10PM, and every two hours, 10PM to 6AM. All points along the bus route should be within walking distance of any destination. Anyone should be able to get to their destination which should be no more than a 1 mile walk. Anyone who did not want to walk could get a taxi at taxi stands located along the bus route. This would eliminate a lot of need to drive, especially to and from work. Those who chose to drive would find the road less congested and save time.

It might be a good idea to put a tax on gasoline dedicated to providing these new transportation service. Those who choose to drive would also benefit because for less congested roads would allow time to be saved. This plan would decrease the need to use gasoline and diesel fuel.

As far as emissions of CO2 are concerned the problem is not the emissions but the fact that they go into the air. If we capture the CO2 emissions where they are produced in large quantities, and put them into gas cylinders, we can use these CO2 emissions to increase the growth of crops such as corn and soybeans, which in turn can be made into ethanol fuel and bio-diesel.

We can do a lot better than the 15%-20% targets you envision. All we need to do is to grow trees and crops with the carbon dioxide emissions. A tree will sequester CO2 emissions for a 100 or 200 years or more.

In addition to the above new products can be made from CO2, though chemistry and biotechnology. One such product is methanol, which can be used to power automobiles. Methanol has about 1/2 the energy of gasoline but cost about 1/3 as much.

We also need it increase the amount of energy made by wind power, solar power, and geothermal energy. Waste heat that now goes into the air should be put to use. (These technologies are sufficient in and of themselves, we do not need any more nuclear plants, in addition to the ovious dangers, they put waste heat into the lakes, rivers, and oceans of the world.)

This approach will enable the cutting of emissions to a level that will permit the reduction of the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. It should be noted that in the years 1997 to 2000 worldwide carbon emission declined while the worldwide amount of carbon in the air increased, according to data from the Worldwatch Report of 2001. If carbon dioxide in the air is to be reduced we need to set a goal to achieve a zero emissions of carbon dioxide as quickly as possible. The goal to achieve zero emissions of carbon dioxide should be set at 5 years in the United States of America. We do not need to dilly dally and create international agencies to do this the United States of America should set an example for the world to follow by declaring war on global warming right now.

First off, it's not either-or. We need to do both - decrease energy consumption by increasing efficiency (the cheapest way to reduce CO2 emissions), and also convert to more low-CO2 energy sources.

1) Absolutely - increased energy efficiency.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/27/energy-effic...

Increased consumption by developing nations will offset increased efficiency by developed nations, but overall over the next several decades, it's entirely plausible that overall consumption could decrease.

2) Sure, it could happen for the same reasons noted in #1 (mainly increased consumption from developed nations). If this is the case, it's critical to greatly increase the use of low-carbon energy sources.

3) Technologies other than what?

4) Yes, it's important to try. Success is avoiding catastrophic climate change. We have no choice other than to try.

5) I don't like these unrealistic hypotheticals. We know CO2 has 2 major impacts on the Earth's climate - global warming and ocean acidification.

But if it didn't, we still need to reduce oil consumption for various reasons (energy independence, peak oil, national defense, etc.). However, in this unrealistic hypothetical scenario, this could be achieved without targetting CO2 emissions reductions. For example, a higher gas tax. But CO2 emissions reductions achieve the same goals.

Q1) Sure, the demand for good and services are curtailing in develop countries. More of an economic necessity than a voluntary gesture.

Q2) Undeveloped countries are quickly filling the gap. ( Bali was/is a joke)

Q3) Most new technologies are unaffordable, impractical, or junk.

Q4) Without true government sponsorship at all levels nothing is going to happen. Just rearranging, and renaming revenues for voter support.

Q5) Yes, but why destroy yourself in the process.

1 - No. Exponential population growth speaks for itself.

2 - No.

3 - Not sure.

4 - We gotta try. When you start to slip on ice do you just throw your arms in the air and give up?

Not, you try to minimize the damage.

5 - Yes. Our behaviors are harmful to the environment. We should try to be a bit more respectful of that dirt clod called Earth that enables us to exist.

I believe in AGW, but I have no faith that humans can unite in any meaningful way.

We are pack animals that are simply too greedy and shortsighted.

History speaks for itself, it's not in our nature to unite in such a way.

I do have hope, but a very small amount of it.