You are correct that any "solution" needs to be global. China will soon pass the US as worlds largest CO2 producer. I believe that trade with China and India will require CO2 limits as the various cap and trade legislations being introduced take hold (Boxer/Sander bill for one). [That is place a cap for each producer on CO2, and trade co2 credits that overproducers can buy and underproducers can sell. Such a system drove the price of sulpher air pollution reduction way down to unpredictedly low levels.]
Electric power genertation produces 40% of US CO2, and transportation producing another 30% in US. Sequestration of CO2 at electric generation sites is a long run solution. But it is problematic. Sequestering CO2 is demonstrated and feasible for NEW coal plants (50% of generation use coal). Older plants can't be retrofited. And costs are high now, 3-4 cents/kwh, but are predicted to be 1/10 of that as technology and experience improves. And a second generation of lower cost PV solar cells is predicted, as is improved wind generation. Both are supplements but not replacements for baseloaded electric plants that can run up to 24/7 to follow demand. And energy efficiency technology is always providing significant ways to reduce energy consumption while providing the same level of "service". Thus, in concept, CO2 could be significantly reduced world wide with: 1) huge capital investment to transform the electric generation industry, converting to new generation of CO2 sequestering generation plants, 2) greatly expanding solar, wind and energy-efficiency, 3) transforming transportation to electric-based (from CO2 sequestered generation). 4) Negotiate China and India etc into the plan via trade pressure and supplemental funding from the West. 5) And a robust and well monitored CO2 credits trading system could drive down the price of CO2 reduction to unexpected new levels. Still, if we stopped ALL Co2 today, it looks like a lot of global warming damage will still be done. And if if we continue as is, 25% of species could disappear in 100 years! And coastal areas could be severaly damaged. That would make the social, economic and ecosystems so much more fragile, that could trigger all sorts of negative impacts. Its a somber picture. Its a set of hard choices. Unless ... ME has a big cooling effect. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/6/07 8:36:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > For the first time in nearly two decades of reviewing research on > global warming, the main international group studying climate change > has found that heat-trapping emissions from industry and other > activities are already influencing weather patterns and ecology in > ways both harmful and beneficial. > > > > Assuming this is true for a moment, we, in the United States, could stop > running our cars, stop generating electricity and shut down all of our > industries that pollute and probably wouldn't have much effect in reversing this trend > because if you have ever traveled out side of the US to countries like China > , India or many other third world countries, you'll find their pollution > levels are far worse than ours. These countries have no interest in using > higher costing technologies to reduce their own pollution levels. They are in the > market for cheap energy and high productivity. Their governments probably > don't give a damn about their air quality and the health of their people because > they also are over populated. I was in India in '96 and the pollution levels > in Delhi were horrendous. Go to El Paso and look at the difference between > El Paso and Juarez Mexico, just across the river, it's like night and day. I > know people that go to China and they tell me how awful pollution is there in > all of the major cities. The United States and Europe alone can't stop the > emission of green house gases even if we shut down our economies entirely. And > the moment we try to impose our "values" on other countries that do pollute > without any restraint, then we are seen as the big bad boogie men suppressing > the economic development of poor people. So, if indeed mankind is causing > Global Warming, which I'm not convinced it is at this point, we are all going > to have to make the same efforts, together. As far as I can tell there is no > country in the world that does as much to be productive and reduce pollution > per capita than the United States. Screwing in fluorescent light bulbs and > driving Hybrids may make you feel good about yourself, but it ain't doing much > when it comes to offsetting what many more other countries are doing or not > doing to fix the problem. > > > > ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. >
