US says world CO2 output to rise 59 pct by 2030 - Reuters

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

US says world CO2 output to rise 59 pct by 2030
21 May 2007 20:55:09 GMT
Source: Reuters

(Adds comment by environmental group on China, other background)

By Timothy Gardner

NEW YORK, May 21 (Reuters) - Global emissions of the main gas scientists
link to global warming will rise 59 percent from 2004 to 2030, with much of
the growth coming from coal burning in developing countries like China, the
U.S. government forecast on Monday.

-snip-

Global carbon dioxide emissions will hit 42.88 billion tonnes in 2030, up
from 26.9 billion tonnes in 2004, and 21.2 billion in 1990, the U.S. Energy
Information Administration said in its annual International Energy Outlook.

-snip-

The trim in expected emissions did not represent the type of deep cuts of
about 50 percent below 1990 levels in CO2 and other heat-trapping gases
that scientists say will be necessary to cut risks of deadly storms, heat
waves, droughts and floods that climate change could bring.

CHINA

The percentage of total CO2 emissions from plants that burn coal, the
dirtiest fossil fuel, will rise from 39 percent in 2004 to 43 percent by 2030.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21474182.htm

[phantom power]

1. I doubt it.

I think peak-fossil and/or the collapse of the biosphere will prevent the kind of "business-as-usual" economic growth that this projection assumes.

[depakid]

2. Demand destruction

As energy prices inexorably rise, not only will entire sectors that are dependent on petroleum and natural gas contract- but so will macroeconomies.

[phantom power]

3. Yes, such a soothing economist term.

In this case, "demand destruction" is going to be a lot like "collateral damage."

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Don't bet on it

There's a lot of coal waiting to liquefied out there, and some interesting recipes for Soylent Green kicking around. :scared:

[phantom power]

6. No matter how gloomy I am, the future keeps getting worse.

:puke:

[NNadir]

4. Of course we could ask countries like Germany to stop building vast coal capacity.

We could ask the United States to stop building vast coal capacity.

We could ask China to stop building vast new coal capacity.

We could ask India to stop building vast new coal capacity.

It is relatively simple to ban coal, if one is rational. If one is not rational however one prattles on about banning nuclear and not coal.

[GliderGuider]

7. In the contest between reason and self-interest, guess which one wins?

Rationality has always lost, and it always will. The fundamental problem with all the mitigation proposals I've seen so far is that they depend on humanity making rational decisions. Why would we expect to be able to do that now, when it has never ever happened before? There is no evidence whatsoever that we are capable of making such choices when there are any significant costs associated with them.

If we want to succeed in this crisis, we have to vanquish two foes - the physical circumstances and our own reptilian brains. In order to survive as a species, we're going to have to become a lot more devious in our planning.

[razzleberry]

8. where are the substitutes?

I am still waiting for,
environmentalists to build free wind, free solar, free wave,
free geothermal, and then sell the power for free to the grid.

note to politicians.
you turn off the power before I get my free power,
is political suicide.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Just to put those into per capita figures

using the US Census IDB population estimates for 2030:

China: 7.7 tonnes per capita
USA: 22.0 tonnes per capita
World: 5.2 tonnes per capita

So the US expects it will get more polluting than it is now. It expects the US CO2 figures to increase by 1.2% per year, while the OECD European countries will increase by 0.3% per year.

By the way, this assumes oil production will be 33% higher in 2030 than it is now - Highlights of the report. So these guys don't believe in, or aren't admitting to, peak oil any time in the near future. This scenario assumes oil prices of $59 per barrel, in 2005 prices. But even in their alternative scenario where the price goes to $100, they only think CO2 emissions will be 3% less - because they expect more coal to be used instead, with an overall decrease in energy use.

And remember the Bush excuse "we have a larger GDP, so we're bound to use more energy"? Here's the estimated CO2/GDP figures for 2030:

India: 138 tonnes/$million
Brazil: 174
OECD Europe: 235
Non-OECD average: 263
Mexico: 273
China: 284
Japan: 292
USA: 353
Australia & New Zealand: 400
Canada: 410
Russia: 441