US Could Cut 28% of CO2 Emissions Relatively Cheaply, Study Reveals

[Frodo]

Study Details How U.S. Could Cut 28% of Greenhouse Gases

By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: November 30, 2007

The United States could shave as much as 28 percent off the amount of greenhouse gases it emits at fairly modest cost and with only small technology innovations, according to a new report.

A large share of the reductions could come from steps that would more than pay for themselves in lower energy bills for industries and individual consumers, the report said, adding that people should take those steps out of good sense regardless of how worried they might be about climate change. But that is unlikely to happen under present circumstances, said the authors, who are energy experts at McKinsey & Company, the consulting firm.

The report said the country was brimming with “negative cost opportunities” — potential changes in the lighting, heating and cooling of buildings, for example, that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels even as they save money. “These types of savings have been around for 20 years,” said Jack Stephenson, a director of the study. But he said they still face tremendous barriers.

Among them is that equipment is often paid for by a landlord or a builder and chosen for its low initial cost. The cost of electricity or other fuels to operate the equipment is borne by a tenant or home buyer. That means the landlord or builder has no incentive to spend more upfront for efficient equipment, even though doing so would save a lot of money in the long run.

Another problem, the report said, is that consumers often pay no attention to energy use in choosing gear. Computers, for instance, can be manufactured to use less power, but with most users oblivious to energy efficiency when they are shopping for a computer, manufacturers perceive no competitive edge in spending the extra money on efficiency.

“What the report calls out is the fact that the potential is so substantial for energy efficiency,” said Ken Ostrowski, a leader of the report team. “Not that we will do it, but the potential is just staggering here in the U.S. There is a lot of inertia, and a lot of barriers.”

The country can do the job with “tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies,” the study found, but doing the work “will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future.”

[Padfoot]

I buy fluorescent light bulbs and I keep my apartment freezing in the Winter.  I'm a huge energy user otherwise though.  I'm constantly on my computer or watching TV and I have 3 different video game systems in my apartment.  Also I keep my apartment the same temperature year round so my A/C bill is awful in the summer.  Man I suck

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have fluorescent light bulbs in my room - although my parents claim they don't like the color of the light they produce - I could care less.

The main problem is that people look @ initial cost for everything, and that's also one of the reasons Americans are so in debt - they see "100,000 for X when the price is normally $250,000" but don't pay attention to the 50% interest - Americans at large don't look at anything through the eyes of the future - and it hurts them financially and also in ways like this.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I have fluorescent light bulbs in my room - although my parents claim they don't like the color of the light they produce - I could care less.

The main problem is that people look @ initial cost for everything, and that's also one of the reasons Americans are so in debt - they see "100,000 for X when the price is normally $250,000" but don't pay attention to the 50% interest - Americans at large don't look at anything through the eyes of the future - and it hurts them financially and also in ways like this.

Yes... because though they are spending money and pumping the economy up a bit.. most of that interest will eventually end up in the pockets of the rich and sit in a bank account somewhere... certainly not trickling down to anyone.

The government and rich people should be wasting their money because that creates jobs and those jobs create wealth and prosperity for more people which raises the median income which then raises the amount of money being spent in the economy because middle class and poor people will spend more of their money as a percentage of their total income.. so the more money is changing hands and everybody is doing better... very Keynesian, I know...

But rich people don't spend money.  They hoard it.  Most rich people I know are incredibly stingy and cheap and that's how they stay rich:  They spare every penny they can and then spend their money in other countries where there is no benefit to Americans.

[MODU]

We could do the same by planting more trees in and around our large cities as well, since that is where large pockets of consumer-generated CO2 exists (and trees just love that stuff).

[dead0man]

Damn, I was hoping this was going to be about farting cows.

So how will the Feds force us to play ball this time?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We could do the same by planting more trees in and around our large cities as well, since that is where large pockets of consumer-generated CO2 exists (and trees just love that stuff).

Or do both.

[J. J.]

We could do the same by planting more trees in and around our large cities as well, since that is where large pockets of consumer-generated CO2 exists (and trees just love that stuff).

Or do both.

While I actually use fluorescent light bulbs and I like trees, but my worry is that CO2 might not be the main problem.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We could do the same by planting more trees in and around our large cities as well, since that is where large pockets of consumer-generated CO2 exists (and trees just love that stuff).

Or do both.

While I actually use fluorescent light bulbs and I like trees, but my worry is that CO2 might not be the main problem.

Even the NCDC, a part of the NWS/NOAA doesn't say that global warming is due to us and CO2 - they say there's a problem with warming, but they don't know why, and won't say why until it's actually provable, not just speculation.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I give you this, also from NOAA:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/20071126_carbonrecord.html

In particular, this:

"Carbon dioxide is the most important of the greenhouse gases produced by humans and very likely responsible for the observed rise in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century. The Mauna Loa and South Pole data were the first to show the rate of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. In 1974, NOAA began tracking greenhouse gases worldwide and continued global observations as the planet warmed rapidly over the past few decades."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I give you this, also from NOAA:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/20071126_carbonrecord.html

In particular, this:

"Carbon dioxide is the most important of the greenhouse gases produced by humans and very likely responsible for the observed rise in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century. The Mauna Loa and South Pole data were the first to show the rate of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. In 1974, NOAA began tracking greenhouse gases worldwide and continued global observations as the planet warmed rapidly over the past few decades."

I think we should attempt to decrease CO2, even if it doesn't increase the climate, simply because 1) it WOULD be cheaper overall, 2) we don't know what else CO2 will lead to (we all remember CFC's and DDT).

Also, that's NOAA, not the National Climatic Data Center, whose job it is to monitor climate - so I stick to what NCDC says before NOAA.

[J. J.]

I give you this, also from NOAA:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/20071126_carbonrecord.html

In particular, this:

"Carbon dioxide is the most important of the greenhouse gases produced by humans and very likely responsible for the observed rise in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century. The Mauna Loa and South Pole data were the first to show the rate of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. In 1974, NOAA began tracking greenhouse gases worldwide and continued global observations as the planet warmed rapidly over the past few decades."

The key phrase is "produced by humans."

[Ban my account ffs!]

The NCDC is not responsible for monitoring climate in a way that gives them to right to make a strong conclusion on the causes of climate change.

They monitor temperature records for the U.S., and it would be pretty stupid to try and claim that CO2 is is solely responsible in the climate trends of the U.S. as there are a myriad of things that can influence the U.S. climate, just like any other region of the world.  The fact that the global temperature, as an average of ALL measurements, has risen is the significant part.

And of course we are not dead certain that Co2 is the only cause.  The climate is very cyclical and CO2 likely plays a significant role, but we cannot be 100% certain whether that role is major or rather minute without first understanding how other things affect climate.

As far as other effects that high Co2 concentrations can have on climate:

About half of the Co2 we emit into the atmosphere is ultimately soaked up by the oceans, causing a chemical reaction with calcium in the ocean which creates calcium-carbonate.  This is all fine and dandy except it drastically reduces the amount of calcium available for organisms in the ocean to create exoskeletons , the most important being plankton which act as the bottom of the food chain in our world's oceans.

It also promotes plant growth which increases humidity, which then warms the planet.  The planet is getting greener thanks to our CO2 and that has been recorded.  This could also be responsible for warming in a more roundabout way.

Much of the warming in Europe, which has warmed faster than the global average, has been pinned down to increases in water vapor in the atmosphere.  Water vapor is by far the biggest greenhouse gas.

[KEmperor]

Much of the warming in Europe, which has warmed faster than the global average, has been pinned down to increases in water vapor in the atmosphere.  Water vapor is by far the biggest greenhouse gas.

Obviously the solution to global warming is a cold shower.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Much of the warming in Europe, which has warmed faster than the global average, has been pinned down to increases in water vapor in the atmosphere.  Water vapor is by far the biggest greenhouse gas.

Obviously the solution to global warming is a cold shower.

I find it rather alarming that European governments (the U.K in particular) go on and on about the extra deaths caused by the 2003 heatwave, which was, if anything, a freak event that hit an unprepared populace.

What is alarming is that there was article after article on this heat wave, and almost nothing about the fact that 10 times as many people die each year due to the effects of cold weather.

The BBC put out so many articles on the heat wave but quietly published an article that stated that nearly 25,000 people died that next winter (2,000 died in Britain thanks to the heat wave) due mostly to strokes and heart attacks related to cold weather and that the government should provide more heating fuel for people in rural areas.

So, if you look at the future and assume that every other summer will be like 2003 in Britain, and also assuming that we will not adapt at all, an extra 2,000 people will die each summer, but presumably many more lives will be saved during the milder winters, resulting in a net reduction in weather-related deaths.

But that is not the way the media will spin it, of course.. they will continue to show footage of Monsoonal floods in Bangladesh and pluck your emotional strings as much as possible to get your support for largely symbolic legislation that will do almost NOTHING to reduce global warming so you can place all the blame on the U.S. when they call foul smelling agreements foul.

Screw Kyoto.. let's actually do something about global warming.

[MODU]

Screw Kyoto.

AMEN!