UN: 'Massive shift' needed on energy

[MindMover]

A UN report on climate change is expected to call for a trebling of the planet's use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.

The report is also expected to argue that the trend of increased carbon emissions can only be reversed if a "massive shift" in energy use is made.

Scientists will also cautiously endorse a shift to natural gas an alternative to carbon intensive sources.

The report will be released on Sunday at a press conference in Berlin.

It will argue that if significant action isn't taken by 2030, global temperatures could rise by more than 2 degrees C.

Such a rise in temperature would be highly dangerous, the report will argue.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27007486

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carbon Tax NOW, INVEST in Renewables

[2naSalit]

1. I'm all for it except

the part about natural gas... not a good option in my view.

[yeoman6987]

3. Well I don't think electricity is either

We are making electric cars with our electrical grid having trouble. We need do something else. Nuclear power? I don't know.

[2naSalit]

4. I always liked

this kind of thing, and if I ever have property, it's the first thing I will install before I move in...

http://www.aerotecture.com/

This would eliminate the oligarchic grid structure but also eliminate such concerns of widespread power failure as this kind of technology could be placed on individual buildings or properties which would have the advantage of localized issues rather than region-wide issues and thwart security problems along with it.

That would be a good start at least, it also would eliminate environmental issues that come with huge wind and solar farms and the problems of getting generated power from the farms to the locations of use. Point source generation is the way to go here.

[GliderGuider]

2. The problem, as always, is how to make sure it's a shift

What global mechanisms exist to ensure that we don't end up simply adding the new low-carbon energy to the existing high-carbon sources? I don't know of any.

Over the years I've had a number of arguments with people (usually renewable energy proselytizers) who claim that the Jevons Paradox is bullshit. The argument usually goes something like this: "If you are already driving as much as you want to, cheaper gas won't encourage you to drive more." They typically consider a single industry in a single country, similar to what Jevons did with English coal mining.

The problem with this argument that is rarely acknowledged is the global scale of modern markets. Money and resources always flow to the places and industries that can make the best use of them, where economic growth potential is the greatest.

If a major consuming nation reduces their demand for a resource, the price falls because the available supply increases. The excess supply naturally flows to some other place that can use it to increase their contribution to the global economy. So even stringent efficiency measures don't cause reductions in global consumption - instead they encourage growth.

In a world composed of sovereign nation-states, a world that in general values economic growth above any other consideration, there is no realistic way to prevent this rebound effect. If some nations enact carbon caps and others don't, the available growth potential will flow to countries that don't restrict its use.

Given the fact that a growth imperative is built into our species' genetics, there will always be countries eager to grow their way into larger roles on the world stage. They will naturally take advantage of world markets to help them achieve that goal.

Oh, and I am also very skeptical of anybody who calls natural gas "an alternative to high-carbon sources". Natural gas IS a high-carbon source, and its use also facilitates methane leaks into the atmosphere.

[quadrature]

5. So it is OK for the 1%ers to dine on endangered species...

flown by air cargo on jets that belch
millions of tons of CO2 into the air,
(and everybody here knows who I am referring to)

but the little people should not be allowed
to have private cars.

why is that?

[NickB79]

6. Because the vast majority of carbon IS emitted by "little people"

For all the (rightful) condemnation of the few thousand super-rich on this planet, the carbon they emit through the use of their yachts, jets and mega-ranches pales in comparison to the carbon emitted by the day-to-day activities of the BILLIONS of other humans on this planet. All their daily excesses can't come close to all the cumulative emissions from small individual carbon outputs by the poor and middle class due to sheer force of numbers.

but the little people should not be allowed
to have private cars.

why is that?

Because we want to make sure the planet can still sustain human civilization for the next century?