3 ms·

Are these statements accurate? The increase in the rate of climate change is primarily driven by the increased emission of greenhouse gasses. The primary driv

Are these statements accurate? The increase in the rate of climate change is primarily driven by the increased emission of greenhouse gasses. The primary driver of increased greenhouse gasses (GHG) is the burning of fossil fuels emitting CO2. In order to stay below 2°C, we need to remain below 2900 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere (source: one of the ipcc reports, I forget which). Our atmosphere currently has somewhere around 1900 gigatons of CO2, as of 2011. (corrected from earlier error.) We are currently releasing 35-40 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year (the US releases about 5), and the rate is currently increasing from year to year. In order to remain below 2900 gigatons of CO2, we need to reach a GHG emission rate of 0 (zero) overall within the next 7-12 years, through some combination of reduction/elimination of burning fossil fuels, and sequestering of current CO2 from the atmosphere. Therefore, each person should strive to not only reduce their carbon footprint, but eliminate it and aim for a negative carbon footprint.

CalRobert 7y ago
"Therefore, each person should strive to not only reduce their carbon footprint, but eliminate it and aim for a negative carbon footprint. " And work like hell to HOLD THEIR POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE for creating systems that make it possible to completely ignore it. Recycling and buying an electric car are great but basically pissing in the wind. A few hippies (myself included) will not fix this.
smnplk 7y ago
And don't think that driving a Tesla will actually reduce carbon footprint ;) Also I am not sure if CO2 is really the most problematic greenhouse gas, I think it's methane. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
- seba_dos1 7y ago
  Methane is definitely a more potent greenhouse gas, but it doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere for as long as CO2 does, so I wouldn't be so sure about it being more problematic.
- tunesmith 7y ago
  CO2 is definitely worse just by volume.
- phkahler 7y ago
  I strongly suspect water vapor from con-trails. The tendency to seed cloud formation is well documented, it's a much stronger GHG than CO2, and coincidently air travel has grown right along with total fossil fuel usage. Oh, and the weather forecasters are only recently learning to get it right in the models.
  - aoeusnth1 7y ago
    What would you estimate the ratio of total water vapor from contrails is compared with the rest of the atmosphere? And if that's small, why would it be so significant?
    - wbrasky 7y ago
      > The tendency to seed cloud formation is well documented
tunesmith 7y ago
In the US, if you want to "make up" for the rest of the world, then since the US releases 5 and the world releases 40, then it means as a citizen maybe you aim for going negative by a factor of 8. Average carbon footprint of a us citizen is 20 metric tons. The lowest a us citizen can go "naturally" is 8.5 tons, like if you're a homeless person eating in soup kitchens. To go negative to "make up for the rest of the world" what is that, -140 metric tons? I guess you have to buy carbon offsets. At about $10 / ton, that's $1500 - $1600 / year per US citizen, depending on how much you cut your own emissions naturally. You could also plant trees, but it takes 40 years for it to absorb a ton. So maybe donate your money and plant 160 trees per year, and then 40 years from now you can stop donating money.

CalRobert 7y ago

"Therefore, each person should strive to not only reduce their carbon footprint, but eliminate it and aim for a negative carbon footprint. " And work like hell to HOLD THEIR POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE for creating systems that make it possible to completely ignore it. Recycling and buying an electric car are great but basically pissing in the wind. A few hippies (myself included) will not fix this.

smnplk 7y ago

And don't think that driving a Tesla will actually reduce carbon footprint ;) Also I am not sure if CO2 is really the most problematic greenhouse gas, I think it's methane. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

seba_dos1 7y ago
Methane is definitely a more potent greenhouse gas, but it doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere for as long as CO2 does, so I wouldn't be so sure about it being more problematic.
tunesmith 7y ago
CO2 is definitely worse just by volume.
phkahler 7y ago
I strongly suspect water vapor from con-trails. The tendency to seed cloud formation is well documented, it's a much stronger GHG than CO2, and coincidently air travel has grown right along with total fossil fuel usage. Oh, and the weather forecasters are only recently learning to get it right in the models.
- aoeusnth1 7y ago
  What would you estimate the ratio of total water vapor from contrails is compared with the rest of the atmosphere? And if that's small, why would it be so significant?
  - wbrasky 7y ago
    > The tendency to seed cloud formation is well documented

tunesmith 7y ago

In the US, if you want to "make up" for the rest of the world, then since the US releases 5 and the world releases 40, then it means as a citizen maybe you aim for going negative by a factor of 8. Average carbon footprint of a us citizen is 20 metric tons. The lowest a us citizen can go "naturally" is 8.5 tons, like if you're a homeless person eating in soup kitchens. To go negative to "make up for the rest of the world" what is that, -140 metric tons? I guess you have to buy carbon offsets. At about $10 / ton, that's $1500 - $1600 / year per US citizen, depending on how much you cut your own emissions naturally. You could also plant trees, but it takes 40 years for it to absorb a ton. So maybe donate your money and plant 160 trees per year, and then 40 years from now you can stop donating money.