In the past two years, the global economy has grown by 6. What is going on? Or as some fear, is it a dangerous myth? But even climate scientists elated by the Paris agreement agree that, even with political will, the task will be extremely tough. Many are unsure whether to be optimists, keen to show the job can be done, or pessimists, determined to ensure nobody thinks it will be easy. The IEA finding followed a similar conclusion about global emissions from an international team of climate scientists, headed by Corinne le Quere of the University of East Anglia in England, reported during the Paris climate conference last December.
A good part of the decoupling, both studies agree, is attributable to China. As recently as , China got 80 percent of its electricity from coal. But growing concern about killer smogs has triggered new controls that mean many coal-burning power plants in China have now been mothballed. Chinese emissions from oil and gas burning continue to grow, Green says.
But that is more than counterbalanced by a combination of declining use of coal and reductions in energy demand from structural changes in the Chinese economy, with energy-guzzling heavy industries like cement and steel production both now declining.
Per head of population, Chinese emissions exceed those of Europe, even though average income is less than a half that of citizens of the European Union. But China seems set on the road to climate redemption. In Paris, Beijing pledged to peak emissions by In fact, it may already have done so, says Green. And even if not, he foresees only small increases from now on.
China is following a road already taken by more economically developed nations. Lately, things have gone further. The United States has become 28 percent richer, but 6 percent cleaner since , says Nate Aden of the World Resources Institute, who reported that, since , 21 countries — all in Europe, except the U. Britain, for instance, grew its economy by 27 percent while cutting emissions by 20 percent between and But this is a minor element, he believes.
These 21 nations show an average emissions reduction of 15 percent, but cuts in the industrial share of GDP are just 3 percent. That said, clearly not all countries are decoupling. Go economy class. A carbon offset is an amount of money you can pay for a project that reduces greenhouse gases somewhere else. If you offset one ton of carbon, the offset will help capture or destroy one ton of greenhouse gases that would otherwise have been released into the atmosphere.
Offsets also promote sustainable development and increase the use of renewable energy. This calculator estimates the carbon emissions of your flight and the amount of money needed to offset them. For example, flying economy roundtrip from New York to Los Angeles produces 1.
You can purchase carbon offsets to compensate for any or all of your other carbon emissions as well. The money you pay goes towards climate protection projects. Various organizations sponsor these projects. For example, Myclimate funds the purchase of energy efficient cookstoves in Rwanda, installing solar power in the Dominican Republic, and replacing old heating systems with energy efficient heat pumps in Switzerland. Cotap sustainably plants trees in India, Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda and Nicaragua to absorb CO2; you can sign up for monthly offsets here.
Terrapass funds U. It also offers a monthly subscription for offsets. Photo: ScottBeale. Finally—and perhaps most importantly since the most effective solutions to climate change require governmental action— vote! Become politically active and let your representatives know you want them to take action to phase out fossil fuels use and decarbonize the country as fast as possible.
As the richest people on earth use more carbon their should pay carbon tax. I do agree with you Kalpna, the richest people use an average of x times more the richer the more they use , since they have mansions requires a lot more power , boats, private aeroplanes etc. Taxes will be for the extra emitters, like the rich people. Taxes depend on their wealth and how much they emit.
But then again, some things DO need carbon dioxide to live. Do I sense fear of stating the unpopular? Popular or not, you may be wrong because people are both the cause of and solution to all their problems. People are not wolves. With wolves and chickens, the more wolves: the fewer chickens, and the fewer wolves: the more chickens. With people, it is just the opposite: the more people you get more chickens not less.
That extra kid may contribute to sustainablility. I see your viewpoint. If one is living sustainably and encourages other people to do so, the benefits of that person living on the planet through getting other people to reduce their environmental impact likely exceeds the personal carbon footprint of that person. Benefits of pets is tremendous — safety, assist handicapped, therapy animals, provide comfort and companionship, reduce blood pressure and anxiety, etc.
If you are referring to the fact that they eat pet foods, most pet foods are made from meat scraps parts not sold for human consumption and include vegetables. Also, changes in feed for farm animals has reduced gas emissions. I guess this is an old thread, but birds for instance eat the same things as their vegan owners. We had broccoli spears, edamame beans, a few pasta rotinis, a few spoons of corn kernals, and the parrot had some organic Harrison feed pellets with vitamins, plus a splay of fresh pea pods.
I had mung dahl on quinoa later on with kale, he had another round of pellets for dinner, apple juice and pea pods. Parrots need adopting, if anyone wants a good pet, check your computer for parrot rescue or exchange sites. Lots of loving companions that need homes…. Thanks for the tips. However, 32 which advises non-stop flying is unlikely to be true most of the time as non- stop flights tend to burn large quantities of fuel carrying the additional fuel mass.
Maybe we should consider adding one more idea. Save carbon rich material from turning into CO2. Reduce your carbon footprint by keeping dead plant around longer.
A leaf falls on the ground and is decomposed this year. I dry a leaf and put it a book and can be there in years. Your point about eating less meat, er maybe even going full vegan is incorrect. Meat might be responsible for more greenhouse gasses, but for vegitarians they cut down millions of acres of forest eacht year to provide the room to grow their crops Just look at the soy farms in Brazil and the palm olive fields in Malaysia.
Deforestation causes far more greenhouse gas emission than cattle, and it also takes away the only means by which CO2 can be removed from the air. This problem is caused by overpopulation, not meat. We can both agree that deforestation is a big problem for climate change. However, it takes 12 pounds of grain to make 1 pound of beef.
It is therefore much more efficient, and requires less land and deforestation, if we just eat the grain itself. Grass is a huge CO2 sink. Buy grass fed. Broccoli will use more land and give you less nutrition. Hooved animals walked this earth in large numbers before humans concentrated them in fences and farms. After beef, which is 1, soy is the second largest cause of deforestation. I am a vegan and have solved the problem of soy and palm oil. Solution could be to stop over eating, veg or meat and stop wasting food.
I think food industry should also be penalized. One of the culprits in my opinion are supermarkets. They buy cheap and more and waste a lot as their pricing takes wasting into account. Local govt should monitor and penalize if they waste food items and simultaneously reduce the expiry date of the food items, this will deter industry to mass produce anything edible. These are scalable and I believe would be very effective. Packaging is also a problem.
A ml bottle for wine weighs gm — very inefficient. Lots of energy wasted even if recycled. Ban wine, beer, drinks in glass bottles? But I of course realize that not everyone has this experience. We as the agricultural industry raise cattle for dairy and meat products AND we grow the crops necessary for people who choose to be either vegan or vegetarian. I would also like to say that I am slightly disappointed in an institution like Columbia University for blaming climate change on cattle burping methane into the atmosphere.
Cows do burp methane into the atmosphere, this is true, but what people always seem to forget is that this is a part of the natural carbon cycle. These cattle have been doing this since the beginning of ranching methods and before that, the hundreds of thousands of Bison that used to roam the great plains did the same thing. We cannot blame cattle for doing what they are designed to do. Anyway, sorry for rambling on, hope that this possibly helped someone. Acarnes, this is really poor logic.
But we have There is nothing natural about industrial agriculture, and quantity of the GHG source is more important than whether or not it existed in some capacity pre-industrialization. As someone mentioned above, it takes 12 lbs of grain to make 1 lb of beef not to mention water! If more people move to substitute more plants for beef, you can feed the same amount of people with less cows, as that 12 lbs of grain can feed more people than 1 lb of beef.
This clearly reduces carbon footprint, as it reduces overall consumption and agricultural production per person. It takes much less land to feed people directly with plant food than it would to grow the food to feed the animals with which to feed those people. If we all are a vegetarian or vegan diet we would need less land and more could be left as wild forest to absorb and store carbon. Hey Patric, I just think that your forgetting that we use a large areas to grow crops to then feed live stock, much more then it would take to feed the human population.
Also cows produce methane. Hi Patric, I definitely see what you are saying with regards to Soy production. Indonesian and Malaysian Rainforest are cut down for both palm oil and soy production.
This means that beef and dairy production are the huge contributors to climate change as they also include a vast proportion of the requirement for soy. Lancet studies in England put out a study.
We cannot save the planet unless we stop herding beef. The study showed less beef and less lamb on the plates of the world to save the planet. Also think of all the heart surgery from grease in our blood vessels these days.
Less beef, then less colon cancer too, better health. Eating red meat has been proved to be hazardous to human health. Lobbyists deny the truth. Big meat is full of toxic material in the animal fat, and big fish too.
The meat eaters make vegans pay for their medical bills, which are enormous. Japanese eat dolphin which is loaded with mercury. It took million years to create the rain forest in Brazil. They should grow river turtles, not cattle, if they want meat in the Amazon. It takes 1, gallons of water to make a pound of beef meat. Why not just live clean?
Lots of good nuts and apples to harvest. Tropical people are happy with bananas and peas, pineapple and all that juicy variety. They hardly eat the meat they grow on the fields they have created from destroyed forests.
Rice is almost the divine of foods, with ginger and turmeric. Some beans and squash keep the soil good, and healthy soil grows all kinds of fruits and trees. We need good soil. Cows eat too much before slaughter.
People can eat sea urchins that overpopulate the shores. People could fish them with a knife. Pig farms will have to close too. All that pollution and putrid decayed matter pigs produce will at last be gone. Farms were once sacred to nature. Soil was fertile, and so plentiful was food. Many industrial processes have no existing low-emission alternative and will require carbon capture and storage to reduce emissions over the long term.
Hydrofluorocarbons HFCs — chemicals widely used in refrigeration, air conditioning, foam blowing, and other applications — are the fastest-growing greenhouse gases. With a global warming potential thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide, HFCs can have a significant impact on climate change.
Given their high emissions rates and relatively short atmospheric lifetimes compared to carbon dioxide , efforts to reduce HFC emissions in the near term will significantly reduce projected temperature increases over the coming decades. The American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of directs EPA to implement an percent phasedown of the production and consumption of regulated HFCs over a year period, manage these HFCs and their substitutes, and facilitate the transition to next-generation technologies.
In the production process, methane can leak unintentionally. It also can be intentionally released or vented to the atmosphere for safety reasons at the wellhead or to reduce pressure from equipment or pipelines. Among many other things, the Executive Order calls on the EPA to consider suspending or revising a technical amendment to the new source performance standards NSPS for the oil and gas sector by September In addition, the Executive Order calls on EPA to consider proposing regulations for methane and volatile organic compounds VOCs from existing operations in the oil and gas sector by September In June , Congress voted to repeal the methane rule under the Congressional Review Act and the resolution was signed into law by President Biden.
The measure restores the more stringent methane rule. In August , EPA issued two amendments i. These amendments removed transmission and storage segments from covered oil and gas source categories, rescinded NSPS applicable to those sources, and rescinded methane-specific requirements for the production and processing segments under Section b of the Clean Air Act.
In the amendments, EPA declared that there are no emissions impacts or potential costs from removing the methane requirements for new, reconstructed, and modified sources in the production and processing segments. The EPA justified the amendments with the claim that the current methane limits are redundant with the NSPS volatile organic compounds VOCs requirements in the production and processing segments e.
Operators new oil and gas wells must now follow the methane rule, which required them to find and repair leaks and capture natural gas from the completion of hydraulically fractured oil and gas wells. They must also limit emissions from new and modified pneumatic pumps, and from several types of equipment used at natural gas transmission compressor stations, including compressors and pneumatic controllers.
0コメント