SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

• 1
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 43

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeFrom the Climate Change Summit just ended in Montreal:U.S. Isolated by Stance on Global Warming from the other climate summit in sydney:QuoteClimate summit challenges Kyoto's approach By Janaki Kremmer, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor The inaugural two-day summit of what many see as an American-led alternative to the Kyoto climate treaty convenes Wednesday in Sydney. Formed this past July, the new bloc brings together the US, China, India, Australia, South Korea, and Japan. These six nations are responsible for more than 40 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, which some scientists claim cause global warming.Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which sets emissions targets for nations, the new Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate aims to reduce emissions voluntarily through the transfer of emerging technologies - including "clean coal," burial of carbon dioxide, and next-generation nuclear power - from industrialized nations to the developing world.The pact's advocates argue it is a more realistic approach than Kyoto, and commits many of the major nations not yet bound by Kyoto quotas to at least the principle of reducing emissions. The effectiveness of this effort, however, may ride on whether the high-tech systems can be developed fast enough and made commercially enticing for businesses not otherwise compelled to adopt greener methods.Don Henry, the executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation in Melbourne, says that a pact based on voluntary action has no teeth. "We have realized after 50 years of tackling the pollution problem that to be [effective] we need laws, not just voluntary agreements."Experts say that most technology transfers under consideration are not yet commercially viable, and will require millions of dollars in subsidies or investment. Some are still in the research phase. This first meeting will be an attempt by all the six countries to come up with plans and ideas that can be put in motion.During the meeting, Australia is expected to announce a $75 million contribution to a fund to help develop clean technology in China and India."While Kyoto puddles on nicely, the real reductions will come from technology," Australia's Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, told the Sydney Morning Herald. "This is not a diplomatic love-in. It's a hard-edged business plan with targets and reporting duties."But Mr. Macfarlane indicated that no specific timetable would be used under the new plan.Ian Campbell, Australia's environmental minister, told reporters in Perth recently that, "We're going to have a 40 percent increase in emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, while the world needs a 50 percent reduction. We've got to find something that works better."In that search for something better, a number of technologies are likely to be pushed at this week's meeting - many of which play to Australia's economic strengths.Among them is a new generation of safer nuclear reactors that incorporate more safety systems that kick in automatically, relying less on human intervention to avert disasters. Australia, a major supplier of uranium, stands to benefit from rising global interest in nuclear energy, which does not produce the large amounts of greenhouse gases generated by fossil fuels.Another of the new initiatives on the table is a US government "clean coal" project called Future Gen. It aims to develop coal-fired power stations that emit no carbon dioxide. This would include gasifying the coal before burning it, and capturing and storing the CO2 produced.Though the technology could reduce emissions, critics believe that it could not be scaled up fast enough to halt climate change. It would still benefit the coal industries. Australia exports$14.7 billion in coal, up from $9.5 billion just four years ago."Even if it failed to reach the targets 20 or 30 years from now, the coal industry would still make a profit," says Colin Butler, environment expert at the Australian National University in Canberra.Don Henry adds that without targets and national legislation, the new pact would disadvantage progressive companies as no one else would bear the costs."Also, voluntary methods rely on public subsidies - taxpayers will pay a bomb rather than the polluters," he adds. Both the US and Australia had earlier refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that it cost jobs - about 5 million in the US alone. They also said that it was too lenient on developing nations such as China and India. Neither China nor India are targets bound by Kyoto to cut greenhouse gases during the agreement's first stage, set to end in 2012. It was agreed that the emerging Asian powers needed economic space to grow, and that those nations most responsible for the current level of pollution - the developed nations - should shoulder the initial burden. Pact has brought businesses alongWhile businesses in the US and Australia have been split in recent years over the Kyoto Protocol, the new pact has brought more businesses along. Gerry Hueston, the president of the oil group BP and a senior member of the Business Council of Australia, has asked fellow council members to adopt plans to cut greenhouse gases. This week will bring to the table many industry representatives from companies such as Exxon Mobil and the mining firm Rio Tinto. But some experts here say that both Australia and the US are playing the politics of divide and rule in an effort to weaken Kyoto and take along some of the key polluters such as India and China. With the first stage of Kyoto coming to an end in 2012, and with only 20 percent of emission reduction covered by 2020, the European Union had been working hard to get agreement from the Group of 77 developing nations for future actions to balance the pressure on the rest of the developed world. "I don't believe that India and China are about to leave Kyoto, but maybe the long-term hope is that they will," says Colin Butler of the Australian National University. US says group won't undermine KyotoThe US and Australia deny that they are trying to undermine the Kyoto accord, insisting instead that the new grouping is meant to compliment it. Mr. Henry says that Kyoto for all its problems has a fairness mechanism built into it and a majority of the developing countries that are a part of it are benefiting from the market-based mechanisms. One of India's foremost environmentalists, Sunita Narain, says that India acquiesced to this new group meeting in Sydney because it is vulnerable to global warming. "This country's majority subsists at the margins of survival; any variation in climate can throw India off that edge." Other than the introduction of the pact in Laos last year and the release of a vision statement, there has been little in the way of detail about the agreement. "We welcome the initiative, but we have no idea how the architecture of the agreement will work," Mark O' Neill head of the Australian Coal Association, said recently. Mr. Campbell warned against expecting the first summit to produce a "silver bullet" to the climate change problem. "Ultimately the test of the success of this partnership will be over a number of years," Campbell told ABC radio. TraderJoe Posts: 11048 Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm ### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation) Gotta love a bipolar world. JWD Topic Author Posts: 1310 Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm ### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation) Please remember to use this thread for Mitigation  that is, actions that we can take, international through personal  to start ameliorating the effects of global warming. Thanks. It will help organize the discussion. There are separate threads for the scientific aspects of global warming, for the impacts of global warming, and for general discussion on energy and the environment.On another thread, TJ says: Economists price the ravages of climate changeThe price of the US's "addiction to oil"goes far beyond the dependence on politically volatile states cited by President George W.?Bush this week. According to the world's leading climate scientists, reliance on fossil fuels is creating a global warming disaster that could end up costing the earth. Faced with these threats, rational people and governments might be expected to reduce their greenhouse gas output.But there is little appeal in taking costly action in the short term to stave off a long-term threat  especially one that, by its nature, is hard to calibrate. The real first step is to recognize that there is a problem with globally serious consequences, recognize that we know a lot about the problem and will never have perfect information about the problem, recognize that burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for the problem, and recognize that we owe our children and grandchildren a serious attempt to start doing something right now.Attitudes matter. There are personal actions that individuals can do, right now. Little things may not seem like much, and its not enough, but a lot of people doing a lot of little things can still add up. Here are a few items (Carbon amounts from CO2 emissions are for the year 1990, Table SPM.1 of the IPCC Mitigation Report):Buildings add about 1.6 gigatons of carbon per year (1.6 GtC/yr) to the atmosphere through burning of fossil fuels for heating, electricity, etc. Some amelioration is possible just through conservation measures, better insulation, etc. (which also saves on your energy bill).Transportation adds about 1 GtC/yr. We can support mass transit and carpool.The IPCC Mitigation Report Climate Change 2001: Mitigation details a number of actions that can be taken, with estimated reductions in MtC/yr and costs measured in$ per ton C equivalent. Ill start reporting some of them on this thread.------------
Last edited by JWD on February 3rd, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053

JWD
Topic Author
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Promising first step by Domenici and Bingaman in the Senate:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_ ... armingSens. Seek Stricter Global Warming Curbs By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer Fri Feb 3, 12:13 AM ET New Mexico's two senators laid out a path Thursday toward creating what they hope will become the nation's first mandatory program for trading greenhouse gases in the marketplace.The technical report by Sens. Pete Domenici, the GOP chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Jeff Bingaman, the panel's senior Democrat, is an attempt to make a reality of a nonbinding resolution the Senate passed last year. It called for "mandatory, market-based limits and incentives" on emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases from fossil fuel burning that warm the atmosphere like a greenhouse.The United States accounts for a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, with emissions growing at the rate of 2 percent a year despite the administration's voluntary climate change policies.The senators said, "Further Senate action on global warming ... is necessary to move our energy system into a sustainable and predictable future, to avoid destructive interference with the world climate system and to maintain long-term U.S. competitiveness and economic prosperity."Last year, while trying to get a broad energy bill passed in the Senate, Bingaman proposed  and Domenici had considered  calling for a mandatory 2.4 percent annual reduction in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the 1.8 percent annual cut President Bush set as a goal. The administration prefers letting industry take voluntary steps, and many businesses have done so----------
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053

JWD
Topic Author
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Biomass EnergyHere is a pretty good introduction to biomass energy:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/abcs_biofuels.html This site includes a description of biofuels research by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Biomass Program, including the following topics:Biofuels for Transportation, Bioethanol Feedstocks, Bioethanol Production, Biodiesel Feedstocks, Biodiesel Production, and Biofuels and the Environment -----
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

so much for the global warming myth !QuoteScientist predicts 'mini Ice Age'Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity. Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported. The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said. Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation. The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.

JWD
Topic Author
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

A response entitled Solar Variability and Global Warming to the preceeding post by ppauper has been made in the Global Warming - Scientific Aspects thread:http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm? ... adid=29176 --------
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053

zeta
Posts: 1952
Joined: September 27th, 2005, 3:25 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Generally I don't hug a tree unless I tap it for maple or am climbing it for the purposes of chopping it down, but how about rapid regrowth forests? Photosynthesis is a nice way of taking care of CO2, or has somebody said this already? I took biochem when an undergrad and it's remarkable the symbiosis we have with plants. Alternatively we could all move to mars which I suppose is equally feasible

JWD
Topic Author
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Carbon Sequestrationzeta(s) says:  how about rapid regrowth forests? Photosynthesis is a nice way of taking care of CO2, or has somebody said this already? Right. Its called carbon sequestration, and is one of the mitigation strategies. See: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm , and in particular the summary, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg ... G3_SPM.pdf , page 8.8. Forests, agricultural lands, and other terrestrial ecosystems offer significant carbon mitigation potential. Although not necessarily permanent, conservation and sequestration of carbon may allow time for other options to be further developed and implemented. Biological mitigation can occur by three strategies: (a) conservation of existing carbon pools, (b) sequestration by increasing the size of carbon pools, and (c) substitution of sustainably produced biological products, e.g. wood for energy intensive construction products and biomass for fossil fuels (Sections 3.6, 4.3). Conservation of threatened carbon pools may help to avoid emissions, if leakage can be prevented, and can only become sustainable if the socio-economic drivers for deforestation and other losses of carbon pools can be addressed. Sequestration reflects the biological dynamics of growth, often starting slowly, passing through a maximum, and then declining over decades to centuries.----------
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053

zeta
Posts: 1952
Joined: September 27th, 2005, 3:25 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Thanks for that JD

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

QuoteOriginally posted by: zetaGenerally I don't hug a tree unless I tap it for maple or am climbing it for the purposes of chopping it down, but how about rapid regrowth forests? This has been covered already.Trees emit a boatload of methane which is a greenhouse gas.plants emit methane.While pseudoscientist naysayers and contrarians like Mrs Dash ignore this in an ostrich-like manner,it is of course an extremely serious issue
Last edited by ppauper on February 7th, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hero
Posts: 38
Joined: June 13th, 2005, 9:35 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCA windmill that kills fewer birds.Vertical axis technology has been tried before and failed to compete with horizontal axis turbines. It doesn't scale well and operation and maintenance is costly primarily because you have to remove the top to access the generator. Which is good, because they are so ugly.QuoteA problem for those who believe in "green" power is that is doesn't exist. Greenies liked wind power right up to the point they got it.Standard power generating mills are believed to kill birds in significant number, and of course they are often located in the sort of area where there's more.Also greenies hate technology, a lot, and thus complain about how they "destroy the landscape", (in a way Dutch windmills don't Even though I know they're a stupidly dangerous and inefficient source of power, being a technophile I quite like how they look.What's dangerous and inefficient about wind turbines?! I think we need to distinguish between fact and rumour.If you look up the statistics, wind turbines kill a very very small number of birds (in the 100s). While, leading the table of bird kills in the millions are glass windows, vehicles, transmission lines, communication towers, hunting... these are the main culprits. Let's put the few bird kills in perspective. At least 2 wind farms in Ireland are protecting the endangered hen harrier by letting the land return to natural condition providing nesting sites safe from farming machinery. They fly under and around the machines.'Green power' is not a religion that requires belief. Wind power works and private money is financing the growth. Investors like the large ROE but couldn't care less about the 'green'-ness of it all.You're confusing conservationists like Bellmay and Edmonds with Renewable energy proponents. I wouldn't label them all 'greenies'. They have conflicting opinions. Conservationists usually fail to see the trade off that is necessary.

Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Last edited by TraderJoe on February 7th, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JWD
Topic Author
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

Carbon Sequestration and Methane Emission  Yes, Plant Those Trees!Pseudoscience_pauper says: Trees emit a boatload of methane which is a greenhouse gas While pseudoscientist naysayers and contrarians like Mrs Dash ignore this in an ostrich-like manner, it is of course an extremely serious issue It is false to imply that the recently discovered methane emission by plants makes carbon sequestration a bad idea. The opposite is true. It is better to plant trees, even with the methane, to help counter global warming. The authors of the original study (Thomas Rãckmann et al.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060111/sc_ ... methane_dc have issued a clarification statement; cf:http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 011806.php Here are some excerpts:Global warming - the blame is not with the plantsIn a recent study (Nature, 12 January 2006), scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Utrecht University, Netherlands, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, UK, revealed that plants produce the greenhouse gas methane. First estimates indicated that this could account for a significant proportion of methane in the atmosphere. There has been extended media coverage of this work with unfortunately, in many instances, a misinterpretation of the findings. Furthermore, the discovery led to intense speculations on the potential relevance of the findings for reforestation programs in the framework of the Kyoto protocol. These issues need to be put in the right perspective.The most frequent misinterpretation we find in the media is that emissions of methane from plants are responsible for global warming. As those emissions from plants are a natural source, they have existed long before man's influence started to impact upon the composition of the atmosphere. It is the anthropogenic emissions which are responsible for the well-documented increasing atmospheric concentrations of methane since pre-industrial times.Furthermore, our discovery led to intense speculation that methane emissions by plants could diminish or even outweigh the carbon storage effect of reforestation programs with important implications for the Kyoto protocol, where such programs are to be used in national carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction strategiesHowever, the climatic benefits gained through carbon sequestration by reforestation far exceed the relatively small negative effectThus, the potential for reduction of global warming by planting trees is most definitely positive.The fundamental problem still remaining is the global large-scale anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels.----------
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053

JWD
Topic Author
Posts: 1310
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 12:51 pm

### Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

TJs says: Evangelicals urge action on global warming This is great news! Very happy to see it.------
Jan Dash, PhD

Editor, World Scientific Encyclopedia of Climate Change:
https://www.worldscientific.com/page/en ... ate-change

Book:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/ ... 71241_0053