And then, thinking more positively, I wrote:
“Of course, our consumption might radically decline because of rising fuel costs, CO2 concentration might decline as well and my birthday bash will become front page news.”
I’m so naive.
I was assuming CO2 concentration would increase annually only at its present rate - at 3 parts per million - and not faster.
[A return to the simple life - how likely?: Photo gah]
But how likely are we to conserve any resource, slow consumption, burn less fossil fuel, move away from Market First economies (or business-as-usual) and produce essential goods sustainably for the sake of future generations?
I bet Antarctica will likely disappear before I turn 70 in 2019.
.
9 comments:
As more unindustrialised nations become industrialised, and the world human population increases, we are unlikely to reduce, or even maintain current CO2 emissions. It would take something drastic to get through some thick skulls. 68th birthday? 2017?
*sigh*
-smarmoofus
Oh, yeah... I love your photo! Interestingly, I can't tell if it was actually just a grey day, or if that's in black and white.
-smarmoofus again
hi smarmoofus,
age 68? wow, it's movin' way too fast. i agree with your opinions, however.
re the photo: it was both - a grey day in black and white.
cheers, gah
Smoofus makes a good point, but it's not just the unindustrialized nations, but the underindustrialized that will send the beer truck careening down the mountainside. In his book The Post-American World Fareed Zakaria estimates that between 2006 and 2012 China and India will build some 800 coal-fired power plants with combined CO2 emissions equaling (or exceeding) five times the savings of Kyoto.
Do I hear 63rd?
excellent comment, mojo.
China and India are way behind currently re CO2 per capita but will close the gap with coal-fired energy plants. many being built per year at this time.
gah
I worry less about the per capita CO2 output than I do just the sheer volume of greenhouse gases that an additional 800 power plants will add to the mix. When you're talking about pushing into the 400-450ppm range, it really doesn't matter if that's produced by 3 people or 3 billion. The penguins are still swimming either way.
mojo,
sheer volume is only rising too, isn't it.
i heard China is building a new coal-fired plant every 14 days. "heard".
sound right to you?
gord h.
I'd be surprised if the average wasn't faster than that. Based on six years (2190 days) and 400 new plants (half of the 800 mentioned in Zakaria's book) I get 2190/400=5.475 days. Maybe I missed a step in the math.
Funny thing. When I saw your first installment I thought to myself "Antarctica wouldn't melt completely, there's an actual land mass under all that ice." Then it struck me that once "all that ice" turns to "all that water", the land might as well have melted. It'll be just as gone.
your last words in an earlier comment were 'Do I hear 63rd?'
a coal-fired plant every 6 days - just in China.
i am going to remain hopeful for now that the G8 nations will step closer to a sound commitment to reduce CO2 at their next gathering. naive? likely.
gh
Post a Comment