<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Getting to carbon neutrality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/</link>
	<description>Temporarily Torontonian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:01:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Is the world choosing geoengineering by default?</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-161077</link>
		<dc:creator>Is the world choosing geoengineering by default?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-161077</guid>
		<description>[...] doesn&#8217;t see climate change as an urgent issue. Nor is there any willingness whatsoever to cut emissions by the amount necessary to prevent temperature rise of over [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] doesn&#8217;t see climate change as an urgent issue. Nor is there any willingness whatsoever to cut emissions by the amount necessary to prevent temperature rise of over [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: What might turn the tide?</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-155983</link>
		<dc:creator>What might turn the tide?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 01:49:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-155983</guid>
		<description>[...] There may come a time when powerful corporations with large numbers of employees and large amounts of political clout actually become strong advocates of solving this problem by keeping fossil fuels in the ground. If that happens, real progress may result, well beyond the limited successes of carbon pricing here and there and the efforts through the Kyoto protocol and UNFCCC. The inadequacy of our efforts to date is proven by the fact that global emissions continue to rise. Solving the problem basically requires global emissions to fall to zero. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] There may come a time when powerful corporations with large numbers of employees and large amounts of political clout actually become strong advocates of solving this problem by keeping fossil fuels in the ground. If that happens, real progress may result, well beyond the limited successes of carbon pricing here and there and the efforts through the Kyoto protocol and UNFCCC. The inadequacy of our efforts to date is proven by the fact that global emissions continue to rise. Solving the problem basically requires global emissions to fall to zero. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-154037</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:03:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-154037</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-08/world-co2-emissions-may-rise-43-by-2035-on-coal-use-opec-says.html&quot; title=&quot;World CO2 Emissions May Rise 43% by 2035 on Coal Use, OPEC Says - Bloomberg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;World CO2 Emissions May Rise 43% by 2035 on Coal Use, OPEC Says&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-08/world-co2-emissions-may-rise-43-by-2035-on-coal-use-opec-says.html" title="World CO2 Emissions May Rise 43% by 2035 on Coal Use, OPEC Says - Bloomberg" rel="nofollow">World CO2 Emissions May Rise 43% by 2035 on Coal Use, OPEC Says</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peer reviewed science!</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-129253</link>
		<dc:creator>Peer reviewed science!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 23:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-129253</guid>
		<description>Davis, S.J., K. Caldeira, and H.D. Matthews. 2010. Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure. Science 10 September, 2010 Vol 328 pp 1330-1333.

The long lifetime of existing transportation and energy infrastructure means that continued emissions of CO2 from these sources are likely for a number of decades. This ‘infrastructural inertia’ alone is projected to produce a warming commitment of 1.3°C above the pre-industrial era. This result emphasizes that extraordinary measures will be required to limit emissions from new energy and transportation sources if global temperature is to be stabilized below 2°C.

Climate modeling has demonstrated that even if atmospheric composition was fixed at current levels, continued warming of the climate would occur due to inertia in the climate system. This form of climate change commitment has become widely recognized. Davis et al. focus attention on inertia in human systems, by asking ‘what CO2 levels and global mean temperature would be attained if no additional CO2-emitting devices (e.g., power plants, motor vehicles) were built but all the existing CO2-emitting devices were allowed to live out their normal lifetimes?”. Barring widespread retrofitting or early decommissioning of existing infrastructure, these committed emissions represent ‘infrastructural inertia’. The authors developed scenarios of global CO2 emissions from existing infrastructure directly emitting CO2 to the atmosphere for the period 2010 to 2060 (with emissions approaching zero at the end of this time period) and used the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model to project the resulting changes in atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature. Projections with low, mid and high emissions scenarios led to projected global average warming of 1.3°C (1.1° to 1.4°C) above the pre-industrial era. Since new sources of CO2 are bound to be built in the future in order to satisfy growing demands for energy and transportation, the committed warming from existing infrastructure makes clear that satisfying these demands and achieving the 2°C target of the Copenhagen Accord will be an enormous challenge.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ec.gc.ca/sc-cs/default.asp?lang=en&amp;n=F413F4D5-1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Summary courtesy of Environment Canada&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Davis, S.J., K. Caldeira, and H.D. Matthews. 2010. Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure. Science 10 September, 2010 Vol 328 pp 1330-1333.</p>
<p>The long lifetime of existing transportation and energy infrastructure means that continued emissions of CO2 from these sources are likely for a number of decades. This ‘infrastructural inertia’ alone is projected to produce a warming commitment of 1.3°C above the pre-industrial era. This result emphasizes that extraordinary measures will be required to limit emissions from new energy and transportation sources if global temperature is to be stabilized below 2°C.</p>
<p>Climate modeling has demonstrated that even if atmospheric composition was fixed at current levels, continued warming of the climate would occur due to inertia in the climate system. This form of climate change commitment has become widely recognized. Davis et al. focus attention on inertia in human systems, by asking ‘what CO2 levels and global mean temperature would be attained if no additional CO2-emitting devices (e.g., power plants, motor vehicles) were built but all the existing CO2-emitting devices were allowed to live out their normal lifetimes?”. Barring widespread retrofitting or early decommissioning of existing infrastructure, these committed emissions represent ‘infrastructural inertia’. The authors developed scenarios of global CO2 emissions from existing infrastructure directly emitting CO2 to the atmosphere for the period 2010 to 2060 (with emissions approaching zero at the end of this time period) and used the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model to project the resulting changes in atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature. Projections with low, mid and high emissions scenarios led to projected global average warming of 1.3°C (1.1° to 1.4°C) above the pre-industrial era. Since new sources of CO2 are bound to be built in the future in order to satisfy growing demands for energy and transportation, the committed warming from existing infrastructure makes clear that satisfying these demands and achieving the 2°C target of the Copenhagen Accord will be an enormous challenge.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ec.gc.ca/sc-cs/default.asp?lang=en&amp;n=F413F4D5-1" rel="nofollow">Summary courtesy of Environment Canada</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Masters of nature</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-121082</link>
		<dc:creator>Masters of nature</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 23:16:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-121082</guid>
		<description>[...] do understand the science of climate change, but they don&#8217;t seem to have accepted the scale of effort required to keep it from becoming [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] do understand the science of climate change, but they don&#8217;t seem to have accepted the scale of effort required to keep it from becoming [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hoping for a warning shot</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-117629</link>
		<dc:creator>Hoping for a warning shot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 21:53:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-117629</guid>
		<description>[...] must come soon enough that it allows people to start on the long road to decarbonization, before we have emitted enough carbon to commit the planet to far worse warming [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] must come soon enough that it allows people to start on the long road to decarbonization, before we have emitted enough carbon to commit the planet to far worse warming [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Why the oil sands are unethical</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-111659</link>
		<dc:creator>Why the oil sands are unethical</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:22:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-111659</guid>
		<description>[...] In continued with full-speed-ahead development, Canada is also ignoring our responsibilities to the international community. Dealing with climate change requires cooperation and some degree of mutual sacrifice. Firms in other jurisdictions will inevitably point to the laggard countries as reasons why they themselves should not be regulated. Furthermore, we cannot expect states like China or Kuwait to behave ethically when rich, democratic states like Canada &#8211; states that should know better &#8211; are selling out the welfare of future generations and of people around the world, driven by greed and selfishness. Canada&#8217;s abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol was one of many factors that has derailed international efforts to deal with climate change. That being said, Canada can still do the right thing and pledge to make a fair contribution to the reduction in global pollution that is necessary. In order to do that, we need to move from a trajectory of higher and higher fossil fuel production and accompanying pollution to a trajectory where both are winding down. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In continued with full-speed-ahead development, Canada is also ignoring our responsibilities to the international community. Dealing with climate change requires cooperation and some degree of mutual sacrifice. Firms in other jurisdictions will inevitably point to the laggard countries as reasons why they themselves should not be regulated. Furthermore, we cannot expect states like China or Kuwait to behave ethically when rich, democratic states like Canada &#8211; states that should know better &#8211; are selling out the welfare of future generations and of people around the world, driven by greed and selfishness. Canada&#8217;s abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol was one of many factors that has derailed international efforts to deal with climate change. That being said, Canada can still do the right thing and pledge to make a fair contribution to the reduction in global pollution that is necessary. In order to do that, we need to move from a trajectory of higher and higher fossil fuel production and accompanying pollution to a trajectory where both are winding down. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-102618</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 00:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-102618</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11813578&quot; title=&quot;BBC News - Climate pledges fall short, says UN&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Climate pledges fall short, says UN&lt;/a&gt;
By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News

The promises countries have made to control carbon emissions will see temperatures rise by up to 4C during this century, a UN report concludes.

The report, from the UN Environment Programme (Unep), comes days before the opening of this year&#039;s climate summit.

It concludes there is a significant gap between what science says is necessary to constrain temperature rise and what governments have pledged to achieve.

But with extra political will, it says, warming could be kept much lower.

On Sunday, scientists released data showing that the recession curbed emissions from fossil-fuel burning by only 1.3% during 2009, and that they are set to begin rising again as the global economy cranks up once more.

Unep&#039;s analysis shows that even if governments implement all they have pledged to do, that would &quot;...imply a temperature increase of between 2.5-5C [from pre-industrial times] before the end of the century&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11813578" title="BBC News - Climate pledges fall short, says UN" rel="nofollow">Climate pledges fall short, says UN</a><br />
By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News</p>
<p>The promises countries have made to control carbon emissions will see temperatures rise by up to 4C during this century, a UN report concludes.</p>
<p>The report, from the UN Environment Programme (Unep), comes days before the opening of this year&#8217;s climate summit.</p>
<p>It concludes there is a significant gap between what science says is necessary to constrain temperature rise and what governments have pledged to achieve.</p>
<p>But with extra political will, it says, warming could be kept much lower.</p>
<p>On Sunday, scientists released data showing that the recession curbed emissions from fossil-fuel burning by only 1.3% during 2009, and that they are set to begin rising again as the global economy cranks up once more.</p>
<p>Unep&#8217;s analysis shows that even if governments implement all they have pledged to do, that would &#8220;&#8230;imply a temperature increase of between 2.5-5C [from pre-industrial times] before the end of the century&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-102001</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:33:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-102001</guid>
		<description>The IEA also looked at what it might take to hit a two-degree target; the answer, says the agency’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, is “too good to be believed”. Every signatory of the Copenhagen accord would have to hit the top of its range of commitments. That would provide a worldwide rate of decarbonisation (reduction in carbon emitted per unit of GDP) twice as large in the decade to come as in the one just past: 2.8% a year, not 1.4%. Mr Birol notes that the highest annual rate on record is 2.5%, in the wake of the first oil shock.

But for the two-degree scenario 2.8% is just the beginning; from 2020 to 2035 the rate of decarbonisation needs to double again, to 5.5%. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.economist.com/node/17572735?story_id=17572735&quot; title=&quot;Adapting to climate change: Facing the consequences &#124; The Economist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Though they are unwilling to say it in public, the sheer improbability of such success has led many climate scientists, campaigners and policymakers to conclude that, in the words of Bob Watson, once the head of the IPCC and now the chief scientist at Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Two degrees is a wishful dream.”&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The IEA also looked at what it might take to hit a two-degree target; the answer, says the agency’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, is “too good to be believed”. Every signatory of the Copenhagen accord would have to hit the top of its range of commitments. That would provide a worldwide rate of decarbonisation (reduction in carbon emitted per unit of GDP) twice as large in the decade to come as in the one just past: 2.8% a year, not 1.4%. Mr Birol notes that the highest annual rate on record is 2.5%, in the wake of the first oil shock.</p>
<p>But for the two-degree scenario 2.8% is just the beginning; from 2020 to 2035 the rate of decarbonisation needs to double again, to 5.5%. <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/17572735?story_id=17572735" title="Adapting to climate change: Facing the consequences | The Economist" rel="nofollow">Though they are unwilling to say it in public, the sheer improbability of such success has led many climate scientists, campaigners and policymakers to conclude that, in the words of Bob Watson, once the head of the IPCC and now the chief scientist at Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Two degrees is a wishful dream.”</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: What&#8217;s possible?</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-98001</link>
		<dc:creator>What&#8217;s possible?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-98001</guid>
		<description>[...] yet, both of these intertwined changes seem to be necessary if we are to avoid dangerous or catastrophic climate [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] yet, both of these intertwined changes seem to be necessary if we are to avoid dangerous or catastrophic climate [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Harper on low carbon technology</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-97650</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Harper on low carbon technology</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:55:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-97650</guid>
		<description>[...] agree. The transition is inevitable and there is every reason to start soon and work with ever-increasing seriousness to move beyond fossil [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] agree. The transition is inevitable and there is every reason to start soon and work with ever-increasing seriousness to move beyond fossil [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The timeline for fusion</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/27/getting-to-carbon-neutrality/#comment-97154</link>
		<dc:creator>The timeline for fusion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:04:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=6721#comment-97154</guid>
		<description>[...] that with the kind of global emission pathway that is necessary to avoid 2°C of temperature increase, and thus &#8216;dangerous&#8217; climate [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] that with the kind of global emission pathway that is necessary to avoid 2°C of temperature increase, and thus &#8216;dangerous&#8217; climate [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

