This is G o o g l e's cache of http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/pfvs/2001II/msg00768.html as retrieved on 26 Nov 2003 14:10:31 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:LU7asbGGR0kJ:csf.colorado.edu/forums/pfvs/2001II/msg00768.html++%22David+MacClement%22+site:csf.colorado.edu&hl=en


Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: david macclement 

[pf] billion tons of carbon, not trillion (was: _very_ plain living.)
< < <
Date Index
> > >
[pf] billion tons of carbon, not trillion (was: _very_ plain living.)
by David MacClement
03 May 2001 06:07 UTC
< < <
Thread Index
> > >
At 12:01 3/5/2001 +1200, I (David Mac) wrote:
>(3) True sustainability.
>... This last stage will have annual man-made emissions of carbon dioxide
of (from memory) 2 trillion tons, in contrast to 7 trillion tons now; not
none, but manageable by the biosphere. (Note that's a 70% cutback; the
Kyoto "agreement" is only a start, at 5-10%).
>

· The numbers were about right (for carbon, in a few years), but the units
should have been billion tons, not trillion tons. Flow, not stock.

  I had mistakenly remembered the units for _stock_ (of carbon) at and
above the surface of the rocky earth (including down to the bottom of the
ocean): 42 trillion tons (est.), most of which (38 T-tons) is in the
intermediate and deep ocean.

· The annual _flow_ of man-made carbon emissions is currently ~6.3 billion
tons.
{The above from p.85 of Worldwatch Institute's "State of the World 2001";
press release: http://www.worldwatch.org/alerts/010113.html }

· The other numbers were also about right.
Page 88 has:

 “.. to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of ... greenhouse gases at
levels that will avoid "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system"; scientists have not reached a consensus on the
stabilization level that would meet this objective. Because a doubling of
CO2 concentration would entail serious dislocatioons, the IPCC has also
considered a more aggressive stabilization target of 450 ppm [c.f. 280 ppm
pre-industrialization, and 368 ppm in 1999].
  According to the panel, achieving this goal would require cutting carbon
emissions by roughly 60-70 percent -- to about 2.5 billion tons annually --
by 2100, and eventually down to less than 2 billion tons per year.”

· If you do actually get into those numbers, you may wonder why a reduction
of 4 billion tons a year, when the stock is 40 trillion tons total, could
have the sort of effects predicted.
  I defer to the experts on the IPCC on this. I'll just say that it's a
finely-balanced system of capture and release, and that the last several
million years of earth's history shows convincing evidence that there is a
strong relation between carbon dioxide concentration and average
atmospheric temperature (see Fig. 5.4, p.86) - very strongly borne out by
the last 50 years compared with the rest of the millennium (at about the
280 ppm concentration of CO2).

· I say it's foolish to drill for _more_ oil for fuel; _reducing_ the
demand for oil by 2% to 5% a year, as some European nations are doing, is
the obvious way to go.

David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
************************************************

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.aVx3Cb
Or send an email To: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
This email was sent to: archive+pfvs@csf.colorado.edu

T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
==^================================================================

< < <
Date Index
> > >
Positive Futures List Archives
at CSF
Subscribe to Positive Futures < < <
Thread Index
> > >