Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts: What Can I Do? (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 2:33 AM GMT on April 10, 2013

Share this Blog
21
+

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts: What Can I Do? (3)

This is the continuation of a series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” I thank Doug Glancy who helped me out last week with a blog Smoking, Marriage and Climate, which discussed the role of peer pressure and social networking to organize and develop a growing movement. These are ideas I will come back to later in the series.

In the first entry of the series, I set up the discussion with the definition of mitigation and adaptation. In this blog, I will focus on what individuals can do to mitigate climate change. That is, what can individuals do to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases?

The easy answer is to be more efficient. I included a complicated graph in the first blog that provided a foundation for thinking about efficiency. The message of that blog is that insulation improvements in building, fuel efficiency in transportation, elimination of standby losses, and more efficient lighting, air conditioning and water heating not only reduce emissions in a significant way but in a very short time they save money. “Standby losses” refers to computers that are left in a state of reduced power rather than being turned off. Chargers and adapters that are left plugged in when they are not being used also contribute to standby losses. According to Energy Star the average U.S. household spends about $100 per year on standby energy.

More efficient use of energy means less money spent buying energy. Over time, the savings in energy will pay for the upfront cost, for example, of installing better insulation or a more efficient water heater. Earlier, I wrote about personal barriers to taking action. Happily, federal and local governments and corporations have taken steps to reduce upfront costs, which many people cite as the reason they don’t spend on more efficient buildings and appliances. In other cases, there are local regulations and coding requirements that demand improving efficiency. A place, therefore, that an individual can contribute is to advocate and to support policies and corporations that advance more efficient use of energy. This helps to provide an environment that encourages better use of resources.

Individuals can and do make choices about fuel-efficient cars, public transportation, appliances and light bulbs. If your concern, however, is climate change, then you make these decisions and then don’t see immediate benefit to the climate. In fact, mostly we hear that carbon dioxide emissions continue to go up and that the planet is warming and changing in profound ways. Therefore, it is easy to become discouraged that an individual does not have a lot of impact. Turning this problem around, however, provides a different framing. Our individual behavior in the consumption of energy has, collectively, led to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it has made the problem. Therefore, we have ample evidence that the collective behavior of individuals can have global consequences. This suggests that individuals should look at ways to promote the emergence of groups of people to enhance adoption of more energy-efficient buying and behavior.

Many individuals have the opportunity to contribute to the emergence of societal groups because they are part of organizations ranging from community associations to civic organizations – the list is long. As a member or leader of local organizations, you have opportunity to have a more direct impact. Students of mine have worked in efforts to improve insulation in entire neighborhoods and in the development of recycling and composting programs. Working in small organizations is also a place where people can take advantage of our natural competitive instincts and peer pressure to incorporate the power of social behavior.

A local activity that especially appeals to me is to get involved in local government and schools boards. This can either be as a citizen speaking at the meetings, volunteering, seeking appointments to committees or even getting elected. Activities range from working to assure excellent science education to asking for and developing weather and climate preparedness plans. Thinking about weather and climate in planning (adaptation) is a good way to make mitigation seem real.

Finally, individuals are often not individual in the resources they influence and control. People own businesses and work in management in companies. These are places where there is often strong attention to reducing cost; hence, efforts to reduce cost through efficiency are likely to be well received. Good businesses are often thinking long term – energy costs, appeal to customers who might be environmentally interested, emerging technology, protection of property, buildings and resources; therefore, business might see advantage in taking up initiatives that are beneficial to climate change. Businesses are places where individual influences have impacts that are far greater than that of a single person (UPS and Sustainability).

Here, I have provided a list of possibilities where the influence of an individual can reach beyond that of a single person. However, referring back to an earlier entry, I would argue that rather than a list of things that one can do, it is at least as important to state what to do and then provide the skills on how to do it. I need some help on skills of how to get things done, people with experience - perhaps the next guest blogger.

r

Some Resources

Here are a couple of the better web sites I have found with the basic information of what individuals can do. Please send me more.

EPA: What You Can Do

Union of Concerned Scientists: What You Can Do About Climate Change

Links to the Series

Setting Up the Discussion Deciding to do something, definition of mitigation and adaptation, and a cost-benefit anchored framework for thinking about mitigation

Smoking, Marriage and Climate Behavioral changes and peer pressure

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts A little detail on efficiency and thinking about how individuals can have more impact than just that of a single person

The Complete List Eight categories of things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases

We Are What We Eat Food and agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 440 - 390

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

Quoting nymore:
According to this graph, about the same as the fantasy of global warming continuing or accelerating




RE:431
How much blue do you see since 1980? Oh! Wait I see one little spec.. Must be a trend starting for more cooling...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting allahgore:


well, my oh my now we use NOAA data?


Allahgore, you need to recognize the difference between data and conclusions.

Scientific papers are written in a relatively standardized format: They include an introduction section, which introduces the reader the study being performed and any hypotheses to be tested; a methods section, detailing how their experiment was set up and/or how their study was performed; a results section, which provides the data that was collected during the experiment or study (this includes only the analyzed data that the author found to be pertinent to the study); a discussion section, where any data deviations or mathematical/statistical analysis is explained; and a conclusions section, where the author provides their scientific opinion backed by the data and analysis from previous sections (this may either support or refute the hypothesis in the introduction - scientific progress either way is still progress). Finally, as many who do not have access to online journals will note, an abstract section is also available that summarizes the entire paper in a few sentences.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The complete set of raw data is rarely ever published within the paper itself, usually for the sake of simplicity and/or length of the document within the journal. Therefore, those who have genuine scientific interest in the raw data are free to contact the author of the paper to ask for the entire data set should they choose to review the data themselves and for their own opinion or conclusions. This usually means you have some sort of credentials showing you are a scientist or professional in the field, or already have a pre-existing dialog with the author. Authors from private research companies or academic institutions have no obligation to share the entire data set with anyone they don't want to, as it is their own intellectual property. Though I suppose it doesn't stop unscrupulous individuals from breaking into a computer server, stealing e-mails, and releasing them to the public out of context.

Anyway, I digress...

Data gathered by public agencies like NOAA is a different matter. Taxpayer money went into collecting the data, therefore, the data is public property, which is widely available to anyone. Authors who collected the data are free to publish a paper on that data within the guidelines set by their respective agencies, but their opinion is only one of several that can be made on the data in question.

What transpired here a few days ago over a drought paper published by an author affiliated with NOAA was a dispute about the author's conclusions, and NOT necessarily a dispute over the data.

In summary, data published by a public agency can and should be freely discussed, as they are abundantly obtainable, and the methods to collect and analyze it are the most transparent. Congruent to this, people can (and should) feel free to dispute the conclusions if they find them lacking or in error. Though, the corollary to this is that the quality of your own review and analysis should be at least on par with that of the publishing author, lest you become a laughing stock in the scientific community....

(end of rant)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


He means that since the anomalous outlier year of the record El Nino in 1998 is still the warmest year globally in the NOAA record, there hasn't been any warming in 15 years.
Oh. Really? I thought he knew better than that. (Sigh). Thanks for clearing that up.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
Quoting FLwolverine:
Sorry, you lost me on this one. What do you mean?


He means that since the anomalous outlier year of the record El Nino in 1998 is still the warmest year globally in the NOAA record, there hasn't been any warming in 15 years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
According to this graph, about the same as the fantasy of global warming continuing or accelerating

Sorry, you lost me on this one. What do you mean?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
Repeating a lie (in this case, saying people on this blog criticized, dismissed, denigrated NOAA data) does not make it true.

Edited to add: and just to short circuit any hare-brained exchanges about this, if someone wants to try to substantiate this lie, please provide exact references and quotes. Don't forget to include the posts where several of us explained there is a difference between data and conclusions.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
Why look at percentiles. I noticed no image of temp was included.







Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:


And how's that fantasy "global cooling" coming along?
According to this graph, about the same as the fantasy of global warming continuing or accelerating

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Denier logic and honesty at their best from Tamino:

Worth More than a Thousand Words


"This is what Lawrence Solomon, writing in the Financial Post, considers %u201Canalysis.%u201D"



Eli Rabbet wins the thread with this comment:

"THAT red line is the single scariest red line Eli has seen. It is telling us that the sea ice maximum the year was LOWER than the minimum in the first decade of operation of the satellite measurements. Since the Arctic Basin pretty much fills in the winter, that is a hell of a lot of warming of the periphery.

link
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
But...but...but it was cold in Tennessee!! How can this be?!?!?!

From NOAA:

--The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2013 tied with 2006 as the 10th warmest on record, at 0.58C (1.04F) above the 20th century average of 12.3C (54.1F).

--The global land surface temperature was 1.06C (1.91F) above the 20th century average of 5.0C (40.8F), the 11th warmest March on record. For the ocean, the March global sea surface temperature was 0.41C (0.74F) above the 20th century average of 15.9C (60.7F), making it the ninth warmest March on record.

--The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–March period (year-to-date) was 0.58C (1.04F) above the 20th century average of 12.3C (54.1F), the eighth warmest such period on record.

Lots more red than blue, wouldn't you say?

hot

And how's that fantasy "global cooling" coming along?

hot

hot
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13466
Quoting JohnLonergan:
snip...The faster melting is due to the rapid climate change which has occurred in the tropics since the 1950s, and in particular since the end of the 1970s, leading to an average temperature rise of 0.7°C in this part of the Andes. At the current pace of their retreat, small glaciers could disappear within the next 10 to 15 years,
One of the major problems with climate denialists and people in general is that they often don't understand science and the subtleties that can wreak havoc in systems within the biosphere.

Even though I have a university degree in conservation (ecology), years later, I am continually amazed at the incredibly delicate balance of factors necessary for human civilization to thrive. Factors ranging from distance of the earth to the sun, the shape of the Earth's orbit, its axial tilt and rotation, to the balance of atmospheric gases, to the effect of less than one degree Celsius in the Andes, and many others must be in a particular balance for us to thrive.

The smallness of the tiny window of opportunity within which the conditions exist that allow us to thrive, or possibly even survive as a species, is truly mind-boggling. And many, if not most humans, are not even aware of this delicate balance. Many people, including some of the denialists here at WU/CC, are totally clueless about the balance of nature. With their ego-driven air of superiority, they mock and deride science and the very intelligence that has allowed humans to recognize our predicament. Their grossly over-simplified scenarios are often devoid of any sign of critical thinking or even the most basic understanding of science and how complex systems operate.

Just remember one thing - even though people would not heed her warnings, Cassandra was right.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Arctic Sea Ice Leaves Record-Small Footprint
Northern sea ice continues its thinning trend.

(ISNS) -- Arctic sea ice has never looked so thin. In the past decade, melting has sped up, shrinking the area where ice floats above the Arctic Ocean to fractions of its previous size and leaving chunks of frozen seawater uncomfortably slender. Recent research confirmed that the extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2012 was the smallest on record.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
Quoting CEastwood:
Looks like solar activity is going to be at a minimum for the next century. The AGW proponents will still be claiming the temperature is rising when we have permafrost in the continental US:

Link

What a bizarre Y-axis.... the values above/below the 0.0 line are different? And the 0.0 W/m2 line isn't noted? Just odd. Either way, they are suggesting a 0.5 W/m2 drop in solar activity over roughly 50-100yrs. Greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere have been estimated at ~1.0W/m2 since about 1980; in shorter timespan (30 years as compared to 50-100) we've doubled that radiative forcing, but in the opposite direction. Seems like your energy balance calculations used to make your claim are a bit off.

Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3170
Science vs Bull$#!%

When it comes to Science, who are you going to trust? Looks like Science wins again.
For more, check out:
'Stephen Moore, Rush Limbaugh, And The Right-Wing War On Science'


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Xulonn:

There is a good blog post by Neven today at his blog on the subject of AGW/CC communication titled "Perception of the Arctic." Both the blog post and the following comments/discussion are well worth reading.

LINK
Excellent post and discussion. Much of it concerns attempts to interest other people in the problems evidenced by the melting Arctic sea ice and so is quite relevant to Dr Rood's blog. Spoiler alert: no one is having much success.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
Quoting CEastwood:
Looks like solar activity is going to be at a minimum for the next century. The AGW proponents will still be claiming the temperature is rising when we have permafrost in the continental US:

Link


Umm, yeah... about that permafrost thing...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The dramatic retreat of the Andean glaciers over the last 30 years

The glaciers in the tropical Andes shrunk between 30 and 50% in 30 years, which represents the highest rate observed over the last three centuries. IRD researchers and their partners(1) recently published a summary which chronicles the history of these glaciers since their maximum extension, reached between 1650 and 1730 of our era, in the middle of the Little Ice Age*. The faster melting is due to the rapid climate change which has occurred in the tropics since the 1950s, and in particular since the end of the 1970s, leading to an average temperature rise of 0.7°C in this part of the Andes. At the current pace of their retreat, small glaciers could disappear within the next 10 to 15 years, affecting water supply for the populations.

For the first time, a study conducted by IRD researchers and their partners(1), recently published in the journal The Cryosphere, provides a retrospective of more than three centuries on glacier evolution in the entire tropical Andean region (3).
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
Looks like solar activity is going to be at a minimum for the next century. The AGW proponents will still be claiming the temperature is rising when we have permafrost in the continental US:

Link
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
Johnny Mercer also wrote a song about this. The ice shelf will have to go even when it's cold outside.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
At Realclimate, Eric Steig discusses two recent papers in Nature Geoscience about the Antarctic Ice Sheets:

Ice Hockey

"It is well known that ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula have collapsed on several occasions in the last couple of decades, that ice shelves in West Antarctica are thinning rapidly, and that the large outlet glaciers that drain the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) are accelerating. The rapid drainage of the WAIS into the ocean is a major contributor to sea level rise (around 10% of the total, at the moment).

All of these observations match the response, predicted in the late 1970s by glaciologist John Mercer, of the Antarctic to anthropogenic global warming. As such, they are frequently taken as harbingers of greater future sea level rise to come. Are they?

Two papers published this week in Nature Geoscience provide new information that helps to address this question. One of the studies (led by me) says “probably”, while another (Abram et al.) gives a more definitive “yes”.

The somewhat different details of the two papers appear to have hopelessly confused many journalists (though the Christian Science Monitor has an excellent article, despite a somewhat misleading headline), but both are really just telling different aspects of the same story."


Who would've thought, mainstream media gets con fused about science?
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
Quoting nymore:
I see the sky is falling bunch have their claws out today. Is it because many in the media are starting to question some of the predictions/conclusions?

Go on the attack boys and girls you must defend what ground you have gained but I fear you may be losing some of your beachhead. I do admire you though if you have to go down you might just as well do it swinging.
It would be a lot more useful if many real climate scientists started to question some of the predictions/conclusions (on the basic of facts, of course, not just wishful thinking or paid opinions).
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
Thanks Xulonn I will check it out!

Also there is a NOVA miniseries about Australia's geological history and part 2 of 4 is tonight.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Xulonn it almost seems pathological. I wonder how many handles he has already created here. I feel sorry for him and hope he sees a mental health professional soon. It has nothing to do with him being a denier. His rage and anger are worrysome.
Unfortunately he is not alone, but it's technically not a mental illness. Rather,it is a manifestation of the psychological issues of those who perhaps don't understand science, and cannot handle the serious nature of the consequences.

There is a good blog post by Neven today at his blog on the subject of AGW/CC communication titled "Perception of the Arctic." Both the blog post and the following comments/discussion are well worth reading.

LINK
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Naga5000:


Yup all that scientific evidence is surely on your side. Ha.
Do you suppose that any of the deniers understand that we "warmists" would really like them to be right? That we don't want our kids and grandkids facing a +2C or +4C world? But they never give us any SCIENCE!

BTW, Neapolitan, thanks for the link to Ben's blog.. That's a new one for me. He has set himself quite a task in countering each of Watts' idiotic posts.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
I see the sky is falling bunch have their claws out today. Is it because many in the media are starting to question some of the predictions/conclusions?

Go on the attack boys and girls you must defend what ground you have gained but I fear you may be losing some of your beachhead. I do admire you though if you have to go down you might just as well do it swinging.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CEastwood:
You call what the experts do in climate theory, "science"? that's a laugh. Looks like former NASA scientists don't think that the "'science' is settled" either:

Link
NeapolitanFan, how many times are you going to link to the same garbage? And that's a serious question: how many times? A bunch of aged, retired gentlemen who admit that climate science is not on of "their specialties"--many of whom have made healthy livings shilling for Big Energy--write an opinion piece and publish it on a poorly-designed website. And you think that will interest anyone who truly cares what's happening to our planet? I can provide links to more than ten thousand peer-reviewed articles by climate scientists demonstrating that the few dozen retirees you hold up as paragons of knowledge are seriously out of touch and, for the most part, ignorant of what's going on. So why do you even bother? And more to the point, why do you even bother posting such nonsense here, where you're going to be swatted down every time you post it--no matter what handle you use?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13466
Quoting FLwolverine:
Agreed. I don't think this one falls within Xulonn's "let's give them a chance" criteria.
LOL!! You're right on that one - already ignored.

Anyone who bases their trolling on links to the totally discredited and un-scientific b.s. on the denialist blogs like that of Anthony Watts is clueless about the finer points of trolling, and even less clueless about what is happening to the biosphere.

This blog is about AGW/CC, which is real, and a danger to our civilization. Suitable topics, from my perspective, would include the ongoing scientific investigations and news relating to it, and adapting to the consequences, the psychology of denialism which inhibits action, and how to communicate the messages to the many unsuspecting people who are going to be hit hard by those consequences.

I'd love to use the red exclamation points, but the most recent climate denier troll is not even on my radar anymore. One has to wonder what makes a person believe such dis-proven clap-trap - all easily discredited on WU-linked SkepticalScience.con as well as RealClimate.org. People who imply that Drs. Rood and Masters, Angela Fritz and all of the intelligent regulars here, including several Mods - people who understand science and the reality of AGW/CC - are stupid idiots won't get very far with their untruths.

It's very weird how some denialists can be so adamant about the untruths they try to sell.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
You call what the experts do in climate theory, "science"? that's a laugh. Looks like former NASA scientists don't think that the "'science' is settled" either:

Link
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
Quoting CEastwood:


You two just keep puckering and whispering sweet nothings in each other's ears while your entire existence is crashing down on you. I realize that you are about to have a nervous breakdown. Even the MSM is starting to cave on this manufactured charade of so-called "AGW."


Yup all that scientific evidence is surely on your side. Ha.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3289
Quoting ScottLincoln:

The red exclamation mark is a good rebuttal to drive-by trollings by interestingly-new accounts.
Agreed. I don't think this one falls within Xulonn's "let's give them a chance" criteria.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
401. FLwolverine
8:54 PM GMT on April 17, 2013
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Want to bet that CEastwood is the same troll whose handle RTSplayer was banned yesterday for personal attacks and making bigoted comments?

The handle join date is suspicious.
The dear departed couldn't have written a one paragraph post if his life depended on it.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2329
400. RevElvis
8:51 PM GMT on April 17, 2013
Summary and FAQ’s related to the study by Marcott et al. (2013, Science)

RealClimate.org

"Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum." - Kurt Vonnegut
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
399. CEastwood
8:44 PM GMT on April 17, 2013
Quoting ScottLincoln:

The red exclamation mark is a good rebuttal to drive-by trollings by interestingly-new accounts.


I'd be willing to bet anyone I'm not Splayer. I'm not a new member, but I'm not splayer either. I was asked to change my handle a while ago, because it wasn't appreciated by certain members of this blog. I thought it was rather amusing. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "troll?" LOL I'm sorry if I disturb your own little protected world in this blog, but, I'm sorry, you can't be protected your entire life. More on why AGW is man-made. Pun intended. Link
Member Since: April 17, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 144
398. BaltimoreBrian
5:13 PM GMT on April 17, 2013
Quoting ScottLincoln:

The red exclamation mark is a good rebuttal to drive-by trollings by interestingly-new accounts.


Agreed. I can't believe I plussed one of his comments by mistake. (!) it shall be.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
397. ScottLincoln
5:12 PM GMT on April 17, 2013
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Want to bet that CEastwood is the same troll whose handle RTSplayer was banned yesterday for personal attacks and making bigoted comments?

The handle join date is suspicious.

The red exclamation mark is a good rebuttal to drive-by trollings by interestingly-new accounts.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3170
396. BaltimoreBrian
5:09 PM GMT on April 17, 2013
Want to bet that CEastwood is the same troll whose handle RTSplayer was banned yesterday for personal attacks and making bigoted comments?

The handle join date is suspicious.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8558
395. Neapolitan
5:04 PM GMT on April 17, 2013
394. cyclonebuster
4:55 PM GMT on April 17, 2013
Quoting CEastwood:


Just where are temperatures creeping higher? Not on this planet. Van der Hoeven is so far out of the mainstream, she's probably communist.


Numerous places.. Which planet you on?

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
393. JohnLonergan
4:25 PM GMT on April 17, 2013
Quoting CEastwood:


Just where are temperatures creeping higher? Not on this planet. Van der Hoeven is so far out of the mainstream, she's probably communist.


Still talking to chairs Clint?
Bye
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3175
390. Xandra
3:33 PM GMT on April 17, 2013
From IEA:

Progress towards clean energy has stalled, IEA says

17 April 2013

The rapid expansion of renewable technologies is one of the few bright spots in an otherwise bleak assessment of global progress towards low-carbon energy, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in an annual report to the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) here today.

"The drive to clean up the world’s energy system has stalled," IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven told the CEM, which brings together ministers representing countries responsible for four-fifths of global greenhouse-gas emissions. "Despite much talk by world leaders, and despite a boom in renewable energy over the last decade, the average unit of energy produced today is basically as dirty as it was 20 years ago."

To illustrate this inertia, the report, Tracking Clean Energy Progress, introduces the Energy Sector Carbon Intensity Index (ESCII), which shows how much carbon dioxide is emitted, on average, to provide a given unit of energy. The ESCII stood at 2.39 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of oil equivalent (tCO2/toe) in 1990, and had barely moved by 2010, holding at 2.37 tCO2/toe.

"As world temperatures creep higher due to ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide – two thirds of which come from the energy sector – the overall lack of progress should serve as a wake-up call," Ms. Van der Hoeven said. "We cannot afford another 20 years of listlessness. We need a rapid expansion in low-carbon energy technologies if we are to avoid a potentially catastrophic warming of the planet, but we must also accelerate the shift away from dirtier fossil fuels."

Read More>>
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281

Viewing: 440 - 390

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.