Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?

[Bob Wallace]

The International Energy Agency announced Friday that energy-related CO2 emissions last year were unchanged from the year before, totaling 32.3 billion metric tons of CO2 in both 2013 and 2014. It shows that efforts to reduce emissions to combat climate change may be more effective than previously thought.

This is both a very welcome surprise and a significant one,” IEA Chief Economist and incoming IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a statement. “It provides much-needed momentum to negotiators preparing to forge a global climate deal in Paris in December. For the first time, greenhouse gas emissions are decoupling from economic growth.”

Following an announcement earlier this week that China’s CO2 emissions fell 2 percent in 2014, the IEA is crediting 2014’s progress to China using more solar, wind and hydropower while burning less coal. Western Europe’s focus on sustainable growth, energy efficiency and renewables has shown that emissions from energy consumption can fall even as economies grow globally, according to the IEA.

Global CO2 emissions stalled or fell in the early 1980s, 1992 and 2009, each time correlating with a faltering global economy. In 2014, the economy grew 3 percent worldwide.

In the U.S., energy-related CO2 emissions fell during seven of the past 23 years, most notably during the recession of 2009, U.S. Energy Information Administration data show. Emissions in 2013 — the most recent year for which U.S. data is available — were higher than they were in the previous year, but 10 percent lower than they were in 2005.

At the same time, the carbon intensity of the U.S. economy — CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP — has been trending downward over the past 25 years, according to the administration.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/13/carbon-emissions-stabilized_n_6865366.html

China’s emissions of carbon dioxide fell last year for the first time in more than a decade, helping stall global production of climate-warming gases. The finding, along with new data from the International Energy Agency, is a sign that efforts to control pollution are gaining traction.

Total carbon emissions in the world’s second-biggest economy dropped 2 percent in 2014 compared with the previous year, the first drop since 2001, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimate based on preliminary energy demand data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/china-s-carbon-emissions-drop-for-the-first-time-since-2001

[viddaloo]

This thread is a variation of the old BBC deceptive trick of presenting energy-related CO2 emissions as though they were *all* CO2 emissions.

In reality, even cars, houses, planes, ships etc emit CO2. The products we import from China emit CO2 through their manufacture and transport. In summary, it looks more and more desperate to apply these tricks, in order to fool innocent people into believing everything is fine or will be fine real soon. This is a serious crisis, Bob, and it won't be solved any time soon.

[Neven]

The IEA isn't the most trustworthy of sources, but let's hope the reduction is real and gains momentum. We can use some positive news.

[Jim Hunt]

Some more positive news?

http://www.ice.org.uk/topics/environment/Journal-abstracts/Reducing-CO2-with-green-concrete

A promising new alternative to Portland cement has emerged over the past decade in the form of reactive magnesium cements, invented by Australian scientist John Harrison. The naturally occurring magnesium carbonate is heated to just 750 C and, more importantly, sets and hardens by taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

[Neven]

Some more positive news?

http://www.ice.org.uk/topics/environment/Journal-abstracts/Reducing-CO2-with-green-concrete

A promising new alternative to Portland cement has emerged over the past decade in the form of reactive magnesium cements, invented by Australian scientist John Harrison. The naturally occurring magnesium carbonate is heated to just 750 C and, more importantly, sets and hardens by taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Thanks, Jim. I believe I read about this last year. Sounds very promising.

But okay, this is off-topic and better suited to the Better Tomorrows topic.

[Jim Hunt]

But okay, this is off-topic and better suited to the Better Tomorrows topic.

I figured CO2 from concrete production was relevant to Vid's point though?

http://infographics.pbl.nl/website/globalco2-2014/

Despite the name, that only covers up to 2013. For my personal take see also:

http://econnexus.org/the-climatic-state-of-the-union/

[jbatteen]

If cars, houses, planes, ships etc aren't getting energy out of the carbon, what are they doing with it Vid?  I believe the reports are meant to distinguish carbon used for energy from carbon emitted from volcanoes, fires, and animals.  I believe you're confusing that with carbon used for electricity, a small subset of the carbon we use for energy.

Edit: I forgot about concrete and such.  I suppose there is yet a third category of carbon uses I've not accounted for.

[AbruptSLR]

See also the discussion on this topic here:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1179.0.html

and here:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,631.0.html

[viddaloo]

If I'm not very mistaken, this jubilant 'we finally saved the planet' press release about stopping the growth in emissions from the energy *industry* is comparable to the world's alcohol industry — breweries, distilleries and wineries — celebrating the fact that the annual increase in drinking among the *workers* in the drink industry has now ceased. So that the people who make the booze now only drink the same *record* amount as they did last year — while *on the job*.

To stop drinking all over the world you would of course have to make the alcohol industry stop the endless production and sale of alcohol to the people, who drink their produce, plus stop those who make stuff themselves (moonshining, winemaking etc).

[jbatteen]

Yeah the more I read about this the more I see it's definitely not talking about total carbon emissions, which continue to rise.  Apologies for being presumptive earlier.  All the same, progress in the energy industry is still progress, so it's better to read this than the alternative.

[JimD]

As I pointed out in a couple of other places this headline is propaganda.  It is just typical of the type of delayer denier stuff you get from the energy industry all the time.  BAU forever I guess.  Reminds me of the tobacco industry.  Or are we just channeling Senator Inhofe?

[Bob Wallace]

Interestingly Joe Romm, who is clearly a climate hawk, finds it credible enough to publish.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/13/3633362/iea-co2-emissions-decouple-growth/

(Interesting how some just can't abide good news....)

[AbruptSLR]

1) As the IEA report will not be issued to June 2015, it is not possible to check to see if the CO₂ emission reductions in primary energy production in China are offset by increased methane emissions and/or increased CO₂ emissions in other Third World countries (including due to increase deforestation).  So we do not even know if this "good news" is meaningful, or not.

2) The attached atmospheric CO₂ concentrations observed for the past two years at Mauna Loa show no meaningful change in the 2014 atmospheric CO₂ concentration w.r.t to trend-line.  However, other non-CO₂ GHG concentrations continue to accelerate.

3) The recent drop in crude oil prices will likely stimulate fossil fuel consumption in 2015, indicating that any possible stalling of primary energy CO₂ emissions in 2014 may well be a short-lived fluctuation.

[JimD]

Interestingly Joe Romm, who is clearly a climate hawk, finds it credible enough to publish.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/13/3633362/iea-co2-emissions-decouple-growth/

(Interesting how some just can't abide good news....)

Joe Romm and I have clashed before and he makes mistakes just like everyone else (he even banned me from his site once).  He is also one of the strongest proponents of Green BAU out there.  I am also sure he knows the differences between marketing and actual results.  Marketing in this case wins out and suits his purposes.  And yours I presume?

[Bob Wallace]

Jim, you wouldn't acknowledge good news if it smacked in the face.

People on this site pour over data in order to determine what is happening with the Arctic sea ice melt.  But some of those same people wave away any information that doesn't fit their belief that our future is hopeless.

Is there any intellectual difference between a climate change denier and a true believer in climatic doom?

[viddaloo]

Is there any intellectual difference between a climate change denier and a true believer in climatic doom?

You tell me! But please, Bob: If I buy petrol for my car at the Statoil gas station, and then drive around Norway till that petrol is spent, these emissions are counted as Transport sector emissions. Not Energy sector emissions.

What these statistics are counting is how much Statoil pollutes while extracting and refining that oil & gas, and not emissions from end use of oil & gas, right?

It's hella fun to celebrate, but also fine to know what it is we are talking about. The IEA website isn't helping.

[Bob Wallace]

An apparent reduction in electricity related CO2 emissions is good news.  It's one of the things we need to in order to keep climate change from becoming extreme.  On its own, reducing electricity related CO2 emissions postpones "peak worst" at a minimum.

What is it in you (and Jim) that makes you unable to acknowledge progress toward lessening climate change?  Is there a psychological problem, some need to live in a world of fear and failure?

Do you have some personal rule that change can only be recognized once it is complete and no progress can be admitted?

Do you operate only in binary states - finished and not finished?

Are you unaware that we essentially never fix a problem in one fell swoop?  That it takes work over time, many steps to get from one state to another?

Or are you in some way twisted inside, wishing for a horrible death for billions which makes any movement away from that outcome repugnant?

Are you working on your Pessimism merit badge?

What drives your negativity?

[viddaloo]

It's not just electricity, as I understand it. IEA never specifies what they're on about. But if you ask 5 different websites that talk about 'energy–related' CO2 emissions, they have — you guessed it — 5 different opinions about just what is energy–related.

Everyone meaning different things by the word energy–related calls for a certain amount of questions about what we really mean when we say emissions are down, don't you think?

If you want, you can compare with news that a football team won some match, but the name of the team, the stadium and date was never specified.

[Bob Wallace]

So you're not willing to explain your extreme negativity?

Instead you try to find some way to dismiss data that shows that we are making progress?  You can't be bothered to check to see what the IEA reported?

Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that global emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector stalled in 2014, marking the first time in 40 years in which there was a halt or reduction in emissions of the greenhouse gas that was not tied to an economic downturn.

The IEA attributes the halt in emissions growth to changing patterns of energy consumption in China and OECD countries. In China, 2014 saw greater generation of electricity from renewable sources, such as hydropower, solar and wind, and less burning of coal. In OECD economies, recent efforts to promote more sustainable growth – including greater energy efficiency and more renewable energy – are producing the desired effect of decoupling economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions.

The IEA talks about the energy sector.  That commonly means petroleum, electricity and nuclear.  They talk mostly about electricity as being where the largest changes have been made.

But rather than talking about that you'd rather tap dance away?   Is that because progress makes you cry, does it spoil your party?

[DrTskoul]

We want CO2 concentration to stop increasing not just energy related!! Let's not start claiming mission accomplished now shall we?

[Bob Wallace]

Who made the claim that all CO2 emissions had ceased to rise?

Who claimed mission accomplished?

[wili]

"Who claimed mission accomplished?"

Oh, oh, oh, I know the answer to that one!!

It was our great President, George W. Bush!!

(Was I right???)

[DrTskoul]

Absolutely.

I was referring to the criticism against criticism of EIA/IEA... Etc Etc not the most trustworthy organizations to act for climate change....

[Bob Wallace]

Color me confused.

Are you or are you not claiming that someone claimed mission accomplished?

What does "criticism against criticism of EIA/IEA..." mean?

The EIA is produces highly regarded energy data for the US.  They have produced some absolutely silly predictions about the US energy future.

The IEA has been criticized for making too conservative predictions.  They were criticized for underplaying peak oil, which never happened.  And they under predicted the growth of wind. 

Are there other sins that those organizations have committed in your opinion?

And how might that apply to the IEA numbers for CO2 emissions in 2014?

[Neven]

Even though I'm less pessimistic than others here: Bob, if I have a life-threatening disease, and the doctors are only looking at the symptoms, then please excuse me my negativity.

The IEA has been criticized for making too conservative predictions.

A more apt description than 'conservative' would be 'too optimistic'. As far as peak oil is concerned: EROEI is going down all the time. You can hide that with all kinds of bookkeeping tricks and creative debt constructs (which is part of the same problem), but physical reality sooner or later catches up, and it won't accept a greener version of the same thing.

[crandles]

Even though I'm less pessimistic than others here: Bob, if I have a life-threatening disease, and the doctors are only looking at the symptoms, then please excuse me my negativity.

Symptoms vs causes might be appropriate analogy if Vidd's

What these statistics are counting is how much Statoil pollutes while extracting and refining that oil & gas, and not emissions from end use of oil & gas, right?

was right.

However it clearly includes electricity generation if a sensible explanation is "2014 saw greater generation of electricity from renewable sources, such as hydropower, solar and wind, and less burning of coal".

Fossil fuel use of electricity is, to me, clearly a cause not a symptom.

Now some people here may be pessimistic enough to believe the real problem is overpopulation above earth's carrying capacity, or maybe 'crony capitalism'.

The general opinion I get is that scientists are extremely concerned about climate change but they are not refusing to fly to conferences and they still believe the worst can be avoided if action is taken.

I think Bob and I represent this mainstream view.

[Neven]

Sorry, Crandles, for not being clear. I was referring to the cause of fossil fuel use, or superfluous fossil fuel use (ie, consumer culture because of the necessity of GDP growth because of wealth transfer to the 1%). So looking at the symptoms, and saying they're improving, doesn't mean the cause isn't there anymore.

It's also possible the symptoms seem to be improving because of side effects of other symptoms (reduction in demand because of ongoing financial crisis, despite all kinds of bookkeeping tricks and propaganda) that are also caused by the same root cause (ie massive debts because of consumer culture because of the necessity of GDP growth because of wealth transfer to the 1%).

[viddaloo]

In a way, this press release from IEA bossman Fatih Birol is extremely futuristic. He's got a number, or rather a word, 'stalled', and refuses to give out information on what it is that has stalled. We're supposed to be happy, that much is clear, but left in the dark about what, exactly.

Mark my words, this is a man of our dystopian future. Other institutions that put out key figures will want to copy Mr Birol and his Dark Ages style.

[Richard Rathbone]

Who made the claim that all CO2 emissions had ceased to rise?

The BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31872460

They say the IEA is their source but the article is about global, not  sectoral emissions.

[crandles]

Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that global emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector stalled in 2014
...
Global emissions of carbon dioxide stood at 32.3 billion tonnes in 2014, unchanged from the preceding year.

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html

Carbon dioxide emissions, the main contributor to global warming, are set to rise again in 2014 - reaching a record high of 40 billion tonnes.

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/communication/news-archive/2014/co2-emissions-set-reach-new-40-billion-tonne-record-high-2014-0

So we are talking about a sector that comprises 80% of global emissions.

I would therefore guess that remainder is mainly concrete and land use change. I don't see room for transport emissions to be excluded.

[P-maker]

Being two and a half months into the new year, the IEA has under no circumstances been able to collect and analyze real data from the nations traditionally being members of the OECD. They do however possess adequate modeling tools to also provide an early estimate of 2014 emissions from IEA and partner countries (including China). The import of coal to China last year  went down and new hydropower and wind power plants came online as planned. All of this has led to a very early estimate from Fatih Birol, who is going to take over the leadership of the IEA secretariat in September. Please observe that Birol is an “insider” and an “energy man”, whereas the lady leaving the building is an economist and represents the mainstream thinking of the nations constituting the IEA.

I am sure that solid evidence, key figures, robust statistical connections and national commitments from various countries supports the views of Fatih Birol and his modelling friends within the IEA secretariat.

[Bob Wallace]

Even though I'm less pessimistic than others here: Bob, if I have a life-threatening disease, and the doctors are only looking at the symptoms, then please excuse me my negativity.

The IEA has been criticized for making too conservative predictions.

A more apt description than 'conservative' would be 'too optimistic'. As far as peak oil is concerned: EROEI is going down all the time. You can hide that with all kinds of bookkeeping tricks and creative debt constructs (which is part of the same problem), but physical reality sooner or later catches up, and it won't accept a greener version of the same thing.

Neven, the Peak Oil "panic" was a strongly held belief by some that the world was reaching a point at which oil availability would quickly drop.  And that would lead us to civilization crash, a return to caves and all the stuff one hears from the doomer world.

An objective person would have been able to see that we were looking at, at worse, a rapid price increase.  And that we had ways to mitigate that hurt without crashing.

As far as your life-threatening disease, let's suppose your doctor came in and said -

 

Good news, Neven.  We're seeing your T-cell count rising.  Now, that doesn't mean you're absolutely going to recover, but it's a sign that you now have a much better chance.

Would it be "too objective" to acknowledge that your chances of survival had improved?

[Shared Humanity]

Unfortunately Bob, the only things that is still rising, unchecked, are atmospheric CO2 levels. I am certainly encouraged by every effort made to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. I am just as clear that these efforts, to date, are woefully inadequate.

[Bob Wallace]

13 March 2015

Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that global emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector stalled in 2014, marking the first time in 40 years in which there was a halt or reduction in emissions of the greenhouse gas that was not tied to an economic downturn.

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html

[Neven]

Would it be "too objective" to acknowledge that your chances of survival had improved?

That would be something to ponder, Bob, back in my house, which unbeknownst to me is built on an old nuclear waste landfill.

Someone said to me: "Your house, the foundation of your life, is built on nuclear waste, and that's why you're sick. Maybe you should move."

And I said: "No chance in hell I'm leaving this wonderful 5000 square feet house (JimD, are you reading), my T-cell count is up!"

How's that for an accurate analogy? 

[viddaloo]

Would it be "too objective" to acknowledge that your chances of survival had improved?

That would be something to ponder, Bob, back in my house, which unbeknownst to me is built on an old nuclear waste landfill.

Someone said to me: "Your house, the foundation of your life, is built on nuclear waste, and that's why you're sick. Maybe you should move."

And I said: "No chance in hell I'm leaving this wonderful 5000 square feet house (JimD, are you reading), my T-cell count is up!"

How's that for an accurate analogy? 

Haha, excellent, Neven! It couldn't be better put.

[Bob Wallace]

Would it be "too objective" to acknowledge that your chances of survival had improved?

That would be something to ponder, Bob, back in my house, which unbeknownst to me is built on an old nuclear waste landfill.

Someone said to me: "Your house, the foundation of your life, is built on nuclear waste, and that's why you're sick. Maybe you should move."

And I said: "No chance in hell I'm leaving this wonderful 5000 square feet house (JimD, are you reading), my T-cell count is up!"

How's that for an accurate analogy? 

Your post makes no sense to me, Neven.

[Neven]

Your post makes no sense to me, Neven.

Bob, you posted an analogy. I expanded the analogy, adding in bits and pieces to portray the crux of our discussion. I'm willing to explain every element of the analogy, if you truly misunderstand (not just disagree with it).

[Bob Wallace]

I used an analogy in which you were suffering from a life threatening disease.  And the doctor gave you news that your signs of survival had improved.

You apparently have some reason why you can't admit that good news is good news.  I really cannot fathom what it might be. 

You went off on some weird stuff about building your house next to a nuclear waste dump.

The way we live (next to a nuclear waste dump, to use your analogy) will make it harder to limit CO2 emissions.  I've previously acknowledged that several times.  But as I've stated, time after time, we are not going to get everyone in the world to "move their houses".  Attempting that would be a fool's errand.

There are, AFAIK, three ways to cut human GHG emissions.

1) Change our lifestyles - drastically.

2) Replace fossil fuels with renewables and find workable and affordable substitutes for other GHG emitting practices while implementing low cost efficiency.

3) Killing off the vast majority of all humans.

I don't see a way to make #1 happen. Certainly not soon enough to save us.

I am not a fan of #3.  I leave that to others to enjoy.

[Neven]

The way we live (next to a nuclear waste dump, to use your analogy) will make it harder to limit CO2 emissions.

Okay, you misunderstood, and I think I know why that is. I tend to stuff everything into my all-encompassing theory, where all global problems are caused by the same root cause. You see the problems as fragmented though interconnected, but each one needing its own solution. Your favourite problem is the CO2 problem.

Here's my interpretation of the analogy:

The 'I' in the analogy would be society or civilisation. The life threatening disease is AGW. The good news is that CO2 is going down (T-cells/renewables are going up). But unfortunately I don't know that the cause of my disease is the invisible nuclear radiation (the need for infinite GDP growth as currently defined, with everything that it entails, cost externalisation, wealth inequality, massive debt, etc) upon which my oversized (consumer) house (culture) is built.

Even though the news that my T-cells (renewables) are going up is in itself good, I (society) will never become fully healthy if I do not become aware of the radiation generated by the nuclear waste (need for infinite GDP growth as currently defined) and move to a better house (culture) where there is no radiation, a smaller house (respecting limits) that is easier to maintain (sustain).

[Bob Wallace]

I see the world's problems as complex and interrelated to a large degree.  However that does not mean that we can't solve any single problem unless we solve all problems simultaneously.

With all the problems the world has we solved the smallpox problem.

Right now we face an enormous climate problem.  I hold that we can at least minimize that problem without dealing with all the other problems such as wealth distribution at the same time.

We could solve the wealth distribution problem and have zero impact on climate change.

The reason our climate is changing is simply because we emit too many GHGs, especially CO2.  That is a problem we can fix and must fix.

You seem to hold that the problem is that the guy down the street from you lives in a bigger house and owns a ski boat (or whatever).  I hold that neither the size of his house nor his ski boat are driving climate change.  What is driving climate change are the GHG emissions from his house and boat.  Make the energy inputs low carbon and eliminate other GHG emissions and he can live in that house and go water skiing.

---

I feel it necessary to repeat that it would be easier to deal with GHG if some people didn't live in large houses and own ski boats.  But I know of no way to drive them from their large houses and sink their ski boats, so I hold that we have to work around that handicap.

[Neven]

I feel it necessary to repeat that it would be easier to deal with GHG if some people didn't live in large houses and own ski boats.  But I know of no way to drive them from their large houses and sink their ski boats, so I hold that we have to work around that handicap.

Well, that's just as delusional as to think that there is any possibility to avoid extreme climate change by following my plan. Which makes sense, as we're both human beings.

[Bob Wallace]

I feel it necessary to repeat that it would be easier to deal with GHG if some people didn't live in large houses and own ski boats.  But I know of no way to drive them from their large houses and sink their ski boats, so I hold that we have to work around that handicap.

Well, that's just as delusional as to think that there is any possibility to avoid extreme climate change by following my plan. Which makes sense, as we're both human beings.

Neven, we are seeing GDP rise and CO2 emissions slow.

GDP growth has been happening (on and off) in Europe since 1990 but CO2 emission levels have been dropping.



GDP growth has been happening (on and off) in the US since 2005 but CO2 emission levels have been dropping.



GDP growth has been robust in China the last few years while CO2 increases have been falling.



If the US gets 13.2% of its total electricity from renewable sources that's 13.2% less from fossil fuels.  There is no reason that the US can't get 100% of its electricity from renewable sources.

There is no reason that the world can't get 100% of its electricity from renewable sources.

There is no limit to energy input - wind, sunshine, deep Earth heat, tidal movement, rainfall.  We have the technology and it is affordable, even cheaper than using fossil fuel.

[Bob Wallace]

Let me add some GDP growth data -

EU and US



China

[P-maker]

Bob

If the US gets 13.2% of its total electricity from renewable sources that's 13.2% less from fossil fuels.

No way!. That's just 13,2 % more energy you can waste.

If you don't take out obsolete FF capacity, you will just experience un-necessary "green growth".

[Bob Wallace]

We are working on both efficiency and converting to renewable energy.

Thank you for your concern.

[Bob Wallace]

In an exclusive communication with CleanTechnica, Michael Mann, climatologist, geophysicist, and director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, stated, “This a hopeful demonstration of the fact that we can decarbonize and grow the economy at the same time.”

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/15/big-deal-economy-energy-co2-decoupling/#comment-1908895055




The CT article is worth a read. 

[werther]

Sharply contrasting the "encouraging" EIA-report, the growth in atmospheric CO2-content is continuing.
The weekly median is now the highest in the record: 2015   3   8  2015.1822    402.02
A lot of questions still need to be answered before the IEA report proves confirmed. And a bloody lot more in the sense of effort has to be put into reducing the emissions to counter a RCP-8.5 scenario.

[Bob Wallace]

I agree, werther, the IEA might have made a mistake in their data collection/analysis.  I suspect we'll have a pretty good idea in a week or two.

If climate specialists such as Mann are paying attention I expect the smart pencils are already at work.

And we certainly have a lot more to be done.  But I think you would agree that the first job is to slow emissions growth, then to stop emissions growth would you not?

Following that we've got 20, 30, 35 years of work ahead of us as we replace fossil fuels with renewables and reduce other GHGs.

[JimD]

......  On its own, reducing electricity related CO2 emissions postpones "peak worst" at a minimum.

What is it in you (and Jim) that makes you unable to acknowledge progress toward lessening climate change?  Is there a psychological problem, some need to live in a world of fear and failure?

Do you have some personal rule that change can only be recognized once it is complete and no progress can be admitted?

Do you operate only in binary states - finished and not finished?

Are you unaware that we essentially never fix a problem in one fell swoop?  That it takes work over time, many steps to get from one state to another?

Or are you in some way twisted inside, wishing for a horrible death for billions which makes any movement away from that outcome repugnant?

Are you working on your Pessimism merit badge?

What drives your negativity?

Bob are you just completely incapable of thinking on more than one level at a time.  What immature nonsense spews from you.  And shallow thinking.  Over the time you have been here there have been hundreds of pretty well written posts explaining in detail the reasoning behind all these things you seem incapable of understanding.  It is either that or you are deliberately misunderstanding them.  Which is the interpretation I lean towards.  It is not possible to be that dense and be able to propagandize so well (though you are mostly just copying and repeating snippets others wrote).  Is there a word that comes out of your mouth which resembles the truth?

You have demonstrated no real understanding of what the problems really are, how many of them there are, how they interact and how much time remains to do anything substantial about them.  Whether you are incapable of thinking that deeply or you have some other agenda than what the facts say I don't know for sure.  But what you say to do is brain dead stupid.  It ..is..suicidal.  It is not me who hates humanity here.  It is people like you who lack the imagination of how to fix an almost unfixable situation.

Your only response is to just keep doing what we have been doing.  You may as well work for David Koch.   And Joe Romm is pretty useless too btw. We are so long past the point where incremental improvements will work.  There is no time for that.  So stop acting like a child every time you see some tiny bit of  technical progress.  It is not relevant to the solution as has been pointed out to you many times.  Try and learn.  Green technologies and progress along those lines will not fix the problems of climate change and carrying capacity.  They are only useful if they are not used to promote BAU.

I find it endlessly interesting how people like you always take the path of least resistance for themselves and put off the real struggle to the people of the future.  Damn selfish and cowardly in my opinion.  For your comfort you will sacrifice them.  It is our fault and if it is going to be fixed we have to change now.

Get is through your thick head that what I am trying so hard to do is to save people and reduce pain and suffering.  I fight people like you because what you are doing is going to make things infinitely worse.

Your constant desire to postpone change and drag things out is exactly the wrong thing to do. 

..Following that we've got 20, 30, 35 years of work ahead of us as we replace fossil fuels with renewables and reduce other GHGs...

I am well aware that humans are programmed for short term thinking and you fall into it easily.  But it has to stop.  We don't have a hundred years, we don't have even 20 or 30 years.  We really don't have any time left at all.  We must change now.