"MOSCOW, November 2 (RIA Novosti) - Carbon emissions need to be brought down to zero by 2100 if the optimal warming level is to be maintained, a new report published Sunday by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated.
“To keep a good chance of staying below 2 degrees Celsius, and at manageable costs, our emissions should drop by 40 to 70 percent globally between 2010 and 2050, falling to zero or below by 2100,” Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC said in the Synthesis Report, adding that it was a “window of opportunity”.
According to the report, 0.6 percent of the world gross domestic product will need to be annually contributed in order to achieve this target." ... http://en.ria.ru/world/2014...-UN-Panel-Warns.html -
Zero percent. Nil. Zilch. Nada. Better get efficient at being efficient...
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-04-2014).]
No emissions, as a non-expert I'm thinking a logical work around for this seeming impossibility is some type of filter to catch emissions. Is it possible to get to zero? Zero emission power plants, transportation, heat/ac, waste disposal, food growth and processing?
Another one, pump Co2 into space? : "This week's issue of The Economist reports on an interesting scheme proposed by Alfred Y. Wong, professor of physics and director of the Plasma Physics Laboratory at the University of California, Los Angeles, to rid the Earth of carbon dioxide emissions. Wong posits that a conveyor built in the Arctic could take advantage of the Earth's magnetic field to expel emissions into outer space." http://www.treehugger.com/c...lems-into-space.html
So they're going to outlaw fire? Unless there's a big disclaimer about the sources of "carbon" that they're referring to, they're going to have to outlaw all forms of combustion, not to mention all animals that exhale or expel CO2.
Stop cutting down rain forests. That would be a good start. So outlaw the use of any wood products.
Originally posted by 2.5: ...... According to the report, 0.6 percent of the world gross domestic product will need to be annually contributed in order to achieve this target." .....
heck - $430 billion/year is less than JUST the USA threw away in the middle east on its "oil wars" so - in that context, yes, it is a great deal. not only a great deal - but a excellent investment.
Humans may be required to have zero carbon emissions by 2100, but who's going to tell the volcanoes that they need to clean up their act? Will the states like California, who have a big wildfire problem be made to pay fines to the UN? I jest now, but who knows anymore.
Humans may be required to have zero carbon emissions by 2100, but who's going to tell the volcanoes that they need to clean up their act? Will the states like California, who have a big wildfire problem be made to pay fines to the UN? I jest now, but who knows anymore.
In the U.S. I'm assuming the tax would be raised via state based on estimated carbon emissions amount per capita maybe even per county? In lesser developed countries taking away a fire to cook with could be rough. Or even here if we are rationing from some sort of clean energy power grid...?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-04-2014).]
In the U.S. I'm assuming the tax would be raised via state based on estimated carbon emissions amount per capita maybe even per county? In lesser developed countries taking away a fire to cook with could be rough. Or even here if we are rationing from some sort of clean energy power grid...?
Lesser developed nations will be exempt, of course. The US will pick up the slack by reducing emissions below zero.
quote
“To keep a good chance of staying below 2 degrees Celsius, and at manageable costs, our emissions should drop by 40 to 70 percent globally between 2010 and 2050, falling to zeroor below by 2100,” Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC said in the Synthesis Report, adding that it was a “window of opportunity”.
“To keep a good chance of staying below 2 degrees Celsius, and at manageable costs, our emissions should drop by 40 to 70 percent globally between 2010 and 2050, falling to zero or below by 2100,” Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC said in the Synthesis Report, adding that it was a “window of opportunity”.
According to the report, 0.6 percent of the world gross domestic product will need to be annually contributed in order to achieve this target."
And THAT, is what this is really all about. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. The sku-is-falling emission reductions to zero is just a ploy to get the 430 Billion $--and it always has been. (That $430 Billion is an annual installment untill (presumably zero emission or 2100) . $430 Billion/yr for the next 85 years = ?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-04-2014).]
By that time frame people will be worried about the new ice age and wishing they had coal, oil and natural gas to burn to add to the global warming to overcome the new ice age.
Originally posted by whadeduck: Humans may be required to have zero carbon emissions by 2100, but who's going to tell the volcanoes that they need to clean up their act? Will the states like California, who have a big wildfire problem be made to pay fines to the UN? I jest now, but who knows anymore.
Volcanos? Or the rapid expansion of fossil fuels that started about 150 years ago with coal-fired power plants and the first oil wells?
Geologists are still trying to get a better handle on greenhouse gas emissions from volcanic activity, but so far, all the reports that I have seen are pointing away from volcanic activity as a significant factor in recent global warming.
At some point think the UN will be enforcers of it?
Enforce it with what? Empty threats? You ever see the blue beanies in action? They couldn't fight their way into or back out of the little town in my location on their best day or our worst. They are observers and peacekeepers, meaning, "where the shooting begins, we end.".
I would think, that the gvt would begin (and has already begun) enforcement by limiting the amt of emissions in every conceivable piece of machinery and endeavor. From lawnmowers to BBQ grill use---to cow fart recovery bags.....
Originally posted by 2.5: I suppose our own gov would need to try and enforce, starting with ultra taxation?
why for? we already are throwing that amount away in just the USA in the middle east oil wars. and that achieves nothing. just end that, and nothing new is needed. I would think making the middle east irrelevant worldwide would be WAY more cost effective than playing the wack-a-mole with the towels heads.
the worst part is, this is nothing new, we would actually be done now, and for far less cost, had it not been for the Oil Czars.
, 
?
?
