Slashdot Mirror
'Moore's Law' For Carbon Would Defeat Global Warming (technologyreview.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: A streamlined set of goals for reducing carbon emissions could simplify the way nations approach the quest to reduce human impact on the planet. A group of European researchers have a refreshingly straightforward solution that they call a carbon law -- or, as the Guardian has coined it, a "Moore's law for carbon." The overarching goal is simple: globally, we must halve carbon dioxide emissions every decade. That's essentially it. The rule would ideally be applied "to all sectors and countries at all scales," and would encourage "bold action in the short term." Dramatic changes would naturally have to occur as a result -- from quick wins like carbon taxes and energy efficiency regulations, to longer-term policies like phasing out combustion-engine cars and carbon-neutral building regulations. If policy makers followed the carbon law, adoption of renewables would continue its current pace of doubling energy production every 5.5 years, and carbon dioxide sequestration technologies would need to ramp up in order for the the planet to reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century, say the researchers. Along the way, coal use would end as soon as 2030 and oil use by 2040. There are, clearly, issues with the idea, not least being the prospect of convincing every nation to commit to such a vision. The very simplicity that makes the idea compelling can also be used as a point of criticism: Can such a basic rule ever hope to define practical ideas as to how to change the world's energy production and consumption? The study has been published in the journal Science.
The priesthood has spoken and we all must give them money or become infidels. Climate change must not be questioned. Let us all be thankful for our daily readings from the Gospel of Al Gore.
Not fooling anyone; it's quite clear that many of the same people who want to cut CO2 emissions will fight tooth and nail against any large-scale energy project regardless of CO2 emissions. Nuclear produces waste, wind kills birds and requires ugly transmission lines, solar damages the delicate desert enviroment and increases the albedo of the planet, don't even f--ing think about hydro, etc.
My former professor was the former chief meteorologist of the US Navy which is arguably the most important weather-related position in the world. He argued against global warming since the US Navy shows an overall cooling trend. They have better calibrated equipment than most airports and measurements over water are more accurate.
I'll pick on India, as I like to. For the most part (ie >50%) people there are desperately poor, have unreliable power, no proper sewage system, fairly corrupt government, and are indian. There is not much we can do about the latter. But for the rest of it even their monumentally stupid government realises they need to get people off the subsistence farming model and for that they need electricity. And, since airy fairy renewables are not cost effective without subsidies, that means coal. And lots of it. Whatever western wankers might think, the impact of the west on CO2 for the next few decades is tiny compared with the third worlders who want, reasonably enough, to join the first world party.