Global emissions to leap 39 percent by 2030: US
May 27, 2009
Greenpeace activists burn a symbol of carbon dioxide in 2008. Global carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise 39 percent by 2030 as energy consumption surges in the developing world, notably in Asian giants China and India, the United States warned on Wednesday.
Global carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise 39 percent by 2030 as energy consumption surges in the developing world, notably in Asian giants China and India, the United States warned on Wednesday.
The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) said global energy demand would leap 44 percent between 2006 and 2030, fueled by a 73-percent rise in demand from non-developed countries.
The giants of the developing world, China and India, will fuel much of the growth as their economies continue to expand, EIA said in a report.
It projects carbon dioxide emissions -- a major cause of global warming -- to reach 40.4 billion metric tonnes by 2030, up from 29 billion in 2006.
Despite elevated oil prices, the use of liquid energy sources -- including petrol -- is expected to rise to 107 million barrels a day, up from 85 million in 2006.
The projections presume no legislative changes to cap emission levels or other initiatives to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
In the United States, one of the world's leading carbon dioxide producers, lawmakers recently approved a plan to reduce greenhouse gases by 80 percent before 2050.
"In the absence of national policies and/or binding international agreements that would limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, world coal consumption is projected to increase... (at) an average annual rate of 1.7 percent," the report said.
(c) 2009 AFP
Feb 28, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
Wrong, H2O is a greater GHG than CO2 and even the greenhouse effect (as applied to the real world) is still only a hypothesis.
More and more of us are realizing what climate change fairy tales are for: A push towards forms of social control and taxation that have been politically unacceptable in the West for centuries.
Those behind the AGW blitz embody a deeply anti-human ideology where a new priest class of eco-clergy merge with global governmental systems to dominate and suppress all independent human activity.
The threat isn't coming from the weather, it's from this new generation of political contenders pushing the same old game of manufactured crisis to usurp power and wealth from free societies. They want to ride AGW into power, and use major media to beguile the masses into accepting false choices to solve a manufactured emergency.
Why else would so many charlatans latch onto an immature and incomplete theory and drive it so hard, unless they thought it was a grand opportunity for wealth and political power?
It's only a matter of time before the masses gain an understanding of the insanity of extreme greens: An ecological "final solution" for the rest of us (never including themselves), a plan requiring the genocidal deconstruction of the human species and our civilizations, and the manipulation of media to create the illusion of permanent crisis, and then to use this illusion as the foundation of total rule.
It's time to rethink which group really presents the most immediate threat to our freedom and stability.
With all due respect, the greenhouse effect is real.
Consider the moon, it receives the same amount of energy from the sun per sq/m as the earth but its surface temperature cycles between -170C to 120C at the equator each lunar day. Without an atmosphere the same would occur on earth.
The fact is that the atmosphere mediates the surface temperature. The greenhouse effect.
Regarding arguments on whether human activities affect this process, I'll leave it upto the usual suspects to comment on that.
The above quote shows the logic of the green movement.
Of course the greenhouse effect is real, without it we would freeze to death this far from the sun.
No one here is confused about the chemistry or the climate, we are all aware of the physics of weather. We protest the political and social ideologies that are riding with the issue.
We don't have any reason to panic about climate change, and we don't have any proven means to predict the climate. All we have are wild speculations and hysterical prophecies based on bogus computer modeling. If we tested these models we'd find that they couldn't even tell you the weather next month, let alone what it will do 30 or 40 years down the line. Don't mix politics with science, and don't be fooled by Marxists posing as green evengelists.
It's sad to see politics and ideology hijack the science of ecology, and for unscrupulous opportunists to corrupt the process in order to push into the power game.
My post was in response to Graymouser's first post where the greenhouse effect was described as "still only a hypothesis"
May I ask to whom you are referring when you say "we" in your reply? Do you speak for all people who post on this site?
The green house effect IS still only a theory. It has not been proven in anything but the laboratory in very simple experiments. The real-world is more complex (much like the difference between physics and engineering) and all of the factors involved in climate have not been identified. Even the originator of the theory changed his mind over the constants involved from the constants used by the IPCC and Hansen. If it were a proven fact the constants (and other issues) would not be in dispute.
When you mentioned the originator of the theory describing the cause of the greenhouse effect, to whom were you referring?