Bonam Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 50 minutes ago, turningrite said: China's carbon emissions situation is certainly problematic but India's is perhaps more so. India, too, is addicted to coal-generated energy and has large coal reserves to burn, thus ensuring that its C02 emissions are likely to keep increasing for decades. And its population is set to surpass China's in the not too distant future. Despite being a major energy producer, Canada is responsible for less than 2 percent of global C02 emissions. Even if we reach our 30% reduction target, the global impact will be negligible and will likely be more than offset by increasing emissions in the developing world. Likely? More like inevitable. China and India's combined emissions increase by more each 2 years than Canada's entire emissions. That is, Canada could instantly cut emissions to zero, and within 2 years global annual emissions would surpass what they were at before anyway, due to growth in China and India. Realistically, Western countries cannot ethically (or practically) deny China, India, and other developing countries from pursuing economic development, which means producing and using more energy. The growth is so rapid that even with the fastest possible deployment of renewables and nuclear, a big chunk of new energy will come from fossil fuels (mainly coal). The international hopes of keeping warming to under 2C by cutting emissions are pipe dreams. China and India will not forcefully hold over a billion people in abject poverty to achieve these targets. I think what we should be looking at now is developing technology for the large scale capture of CO2 from the atmosphere. If the world can deploy technology to capture 20 billion tons of CO2 from the air per year by 2030 the targets might be achieved. Current technologies cost about $100 per ton of CO2 captured, so we're talking about $2 trillion/year expenditure to get there, although the cost may fall with improved technology. World GDP is ~$90 trillion. So the question is, is it worth it to devote about 2.2% of the efforts of the human race to capturing CO2? Worst case climate models certainly suggest that it would be worth it, but not everyone is convinced that the worst case models are correct, plus those most able to contribute to such an effort are also those most able to shelter themselves from the worst effects, at a much lower cost. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.