Topic: Climate change and the power crisis.. - page 2. (Read 458 times)
Power and Energy are must-have in order for a country to move forward since it does the work for the creation and maintaining of ones need to be a developed country. And one of the most used energy sources thay we have is coal or fossil fuels. It is because coal or fossil fuels are the easiest to be found and beneficial to be used as an energy source. However, in every utilization of that energy source, there is also an emission of excessive carbon dioxide that results to extreme greenhouse effect that causes the warming of the Earth. And according to study, developed countries are emitting more than the developing countries. Therefore, we humans, especially people from developed countries must develop also a means to become more developed and at the same time they would not harm the environment. Development is not bad at all, but we must not compromise our environment because of that. It is for the reason that our environment brings our Earth to where we are today.
don't just discuss. go to plant more tree as you can.
Yeah I do my part, will you? because we can't wait and watch the disaster without taking preventive measures. First we need to identify the problem clearly and then only together we can stand up in order to protect the earth. Trust me world is on a path to distruction through human activity causing "Rapid Resource Depletion" and "Heavy Environmental Pollution" which has exceeded Earth's thresold capacity.
-snip-
Thanks for your valuble information regarding ocenic carbon dioxide venting. I'm more than happy to know more about carbon taxing. Another thing I want to highlight is Anthropogenic emissions of green house gases (GHGs) are making the atmosphere more absorptive of long- wave radiation. So we are "closing" the window that allows long wave radiation to escape. This is causing additional green house warming above the "natural" amount.
Another thing we can observed is increasing of ocenic heat content. If it has more heat on the ocean,that heat has to get in to the atmosphere. Therefore heat gradient is very high and more cyclones will happen. That is how nature reacts in order to release the gradient.
The ocean does not take up carbon uniformly. It breathes, inhaling and exhaling carbon dioxide.
Having collected carbon over hundreds of years, this deep upwelling water vents carbon dioxide to the atmosphere like smoke escaping through a chimney.
In the equatorial Pacific, carbon dioxide venting increased between 1997 and 2004.
Source: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/?src=share
I believe that far too much emphasis has been placed on carbon emissions. It is a ploy for enrichment through carbon taxes.
But pollution in general is a bad thing - so reduction in carbon emission is not a bad thing.
https://www.politico.eu/article/bogus-carbon-offsets-emissions-greenhouse-gas-pollution/
I know the way to cool down the Earth quickly and fix the global human population growth problem at the same time but... is called nuclear winter, I hope they don't go for that "solution" even with those crazy heads like Putin,Trump, Kim..
Lol. To be honest people refer to climate change as a problem for reason, it isn't just that it heats up, but that ecosystem isn't used to it.
It is the rapid change in climate that is the main problem, not the heat in particular. Rapidly cooling the planet down would create it's own problems to the ecosystem.
Yeah we all know natural climate variability already there. But the "Anthropogenic effect"is the main thing for climate change.
I also agree with rapidly cooling the planet is not an viable option even thinking about ,in fact it will create more problems.
Quote
Trees take a long time to grow. There is a lot of trees in the World already, I don't think increasing the number of trees is the most important factor.
I doubt that any amount of trees would be able to handle this much CO2. We just need to slow it down, that is all.
I doubt that any amount of trees would be able to handle this much CO2. We just need to slow it down, that is all.
Everything takes time and we are not talking about forthcoming two,three even ten years only, try to look at the big picture. We need to slow down as well as need to take preventive actions simultaneously.
I doubt that "there is lot of trees" since deforestation take place after industrial revolution. I will highlight only few facts,
- One mature tree absorbs carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 pounds per year
- In one year, an acre of forest can absorb twice the CO2 produced by the average car's annual mileage
- One and a half acres of forest is cut down every second
- Loss of forests contributes between 12 percent and 17 percent of annual global GHG emissions
Quote
As for the developing countries needing fossil fuels, yeah, this is exactly why everyone agreed that they should be allowed to burn their fair share that developed countries already profited from burning their's.
Though developed countries already profited from burning their's, why everyone should agreed for allowing developing countries to burn their fair share while everyone has to face the consequences of climate change equally.
So rather better option is introducing mechanisms like "Clean Development Mechanisms" (CDM) for the developing countries, funded by developed countries.
References:
1-51 Breathtaking Facts About Deforestation
2-Carbon dioxide emission calculator
3-https://www.americanforests.org/explore-forests/forest-facts/
I know the way to cool down the Earth quickly and fix the global human population growth problem at the same time but... is called nuclear winter, I hope they don't go for that "solution" even with those crazy heads like Putin,Trump, Kim..
Lol. To be honest people refer to climate change as a problem for reason, it isn't just that it heats up, but that ecosystem isn't used to it.
It is the rapid change in climate that is the main problem, not the heat in particular. Rapidly cooling the planet down would create it's own problems to the ecosystem.
But I believed most important one is "plant trees" in order to capture the CO2 from atmosphere. If we plant more trees ,more absorption will happen.
Trees take a long time to grow. There is a lot of trees in the World already, I don't think increasing the number of trees is the most important factor.
I doubt that any amount of trees would be able to handle this much CO2. We just need to slow it down, that is all.
As for the developing countries needing fossil fuels, yeah, this is exactly why everyone agreed that they should be allowed to burn their fair share that developed countries already profited from burning their's.
The end is near. we must repent or we will go to hell.
Seems like hell will come to us
At the 2015 United Nation's Framework Agreement on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) the nations of the world agreed to limit temperature rise due to climate change to 20C
How would they expect to achieve this? Even if we stop all fossil fuel burning NOW, the earth's temperature is still going to rise for the next half century or so.
20C, it will be disaster.
Look at the above graph and you can clearly see atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing exponentially with time. Now it's more than 400 (ppm).In order to temperature rise below 20C , atmospheric concentration of CO2 should not exceed 450(ppm).
What we should do
Together we can do it, to do that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested that,
- World must redused emission by 50% by 2050 with a peak around 2020
- Annex 1 countries 30% emission cuts by 2020 and at least 80% cuts by 2050
- Developing countries should cuts of 20% against 1990 levels by 2050
But I believed most important one is "plant trees" in order to capture the CO2 from atmosphere. If we plant more trees ,more absorption will happen.
Last but not the least check the following figure,
It clearly shows that how largely CO2 (fossil fuel burning) contributes to the GHG share of global emissions.
At the 2015 United Nation's Framework Agreement on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) the nations of the world agreed to limit temperature rise due to climate change to 20C
How would they expect to achieve this? Even if we stop all fossil fuel burning NOW, the earth's temperature is still going to rise for the next half century or so.
I know the way to cool down the Earth quickly and fix the global human population growth problem at the same time but... is called nuclear winter, I hope they don't go for that "solution" even with those crazy heads like Putin,Trump, Kim..
At the 2015 United Nation's Framework Agreement on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) the nations of the world agreed to limit temperature rise due to climate change to 20C
How would they expect to achieve this? Even if we stop all fossil fuel burning NOW, the earth's temperature is still going to rise for the next half century or so.
I'm a person who lives in a developing country (but not a 3rd world shitposter) and I'm so worried about the "climate change" (actually whole world should be). At the 2015 United Nation's Framework Agreement on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) the nations of the world agreed to limit temperature rise due to climate change to 20C and to reduce the emission of Green House Gases (GHG) which are causing the atmospheric temperature rise and thus the global climate change.
CO2is a GHG and thus CO2 emission from Coal power stations is considered as a major contributor to climate change. So should we going to consider long term least cost option of building more and more coal power stations for the sloution of power crisis or should we going for higher cost options? If we go for higher cost options peoples have to bear that cost. Btw the historical emissions of GHG by developing countries are insignificant compared to other developed countries.
However there is and would be tremendous pressure from environmental lobbies and external parties to reduce or stop further coal power development in the developing countries. So as a person who lives in a developing country how we should address this global issue. Your valuable thoughts are highly appreciated.
CO2is a GHG and thus CO2 emission from Coal power stations is considered as a major contributor to climate change. So should we going to consider long term least cost option of building more and more coal power stations for the sloution of power crisis or should we going for higher cost options? If we go for higher cost options peoples have to bear that cost. Btw the historical emissions of GHG by developing countries are insignificant compared to other developed countries.
However there is and would be tremendous pressure from environmental lobbies and external parties to reduce or stop further coal power development in the developing countries. So as a person who lives in a developing country how we should address this global issue. Your valuable thoughts are highly appreciated.
Jump to: