11 organizations of more than 1,200,000 engineers: We have the technology to slash global emissions

[kristopher]

Future Climate 2: We have the technology to slash global emissions, say engineers
23 September 2011

The technology needed to cut the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 already exists, according to a joint statement by eleven of the world’s largest engineering organisations.

...The statement says that generating electricity from wind, waves and the sun, growing biofuels sustainably, zero emissions transport, low carbon buildings and energy efficiency technologies have all been demonstrated. However they are not being developed for wide-scale use fast enough and there is a desperate need for financial and legislative support from governments around the world if they are to fulfil their potential.

...“While the world’s politicians have been locked in talks with no output, engineers across the globe have been busy developing technologies that can bring down emissions and help create a more stable future for the planet.

“We are now overdue for government commitment, with ambitious, concrete emissions targets that give the right signals to industry, so they can be rolled out on a global scale.”

http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/11-09-23/Future_Climate_2_We_have_the_technology_to_slash_global_emissions_say_engineers.aspx


o The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) (UK)
o The Institution of Engineers (India)
o The Association of German Engineers (VDI) (Germany)
o The Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers (JSME) (Japan)
o The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers (APESMA) (Australia)
o The Danish Society of Engineers (IDA) (Denmark)
o The Civil Engineer Organisation of Honduras (CICH) (Honduras)
o The Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers (Sweden)
o The Norwegian Society of Engineers (NITO) (Norway)
o The Finnish Association of Graduate Engineers (TEK) (Finland)
o The Union of Professional Engineers (UIL) (Finland)

These organizations represent over 1.2 million engineers.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. This engineer heartily agrees

But Big Oil doesn't.

End of conversation, really. Sad.

[Firebrand Gary]

2. We have already started.

I think that many of us on here are still rightfully cynical over the failure of climate change legislation. However we made a bigger dent than most people realize. I am a big fan of electric, our coming auto line is pretty flipping impressive if you ask me. That alone is a game changer.

We have high speed rail that is still going to be implemented in many places which will attack emissions head on. California alone can make an astonishing dent.

lastly, my favorite is solar and wind. Granted their was no national policy for this however many companies are stepping up on their own. It looks as if California and Nevada's future is going to be very bright (pun intended) Ok we have new wind farms going up in 9 different states that I last counted.

[kristopher]

3. You're right. Getting the cooperation to implement top-down change is nearly impossible

...but what is getting done on the purely economic front with the little help governments can give is moving the ball forward far more than most realize.

Have you read this?
Reinventing Fire
http://www.rmi.org/rfexecutivesummary

[tk2kewl]

4. If they really want to get the message out...

Maybe they need to brand it with the Occupy movement. Occupy Engineering or Occupy Science or something.

[FBaggins]

5. We've had the technology for quite some time.

We lack only the political will and the funds to do it.

[kristopher]

6. "lack only the political will..."

Misinformation spread about the capabilities the engineers are speaking of is largely to blame for that deficiency. This misinformation is largely created by the fossil fuel industry and spread by an information network created by the nuclear industry.

As for lack of funds, that is but one more false perception encouraged by those industries.


There is a full and detailed explanation available here:
Reinventing Fire

"...Many other countries have lately pulled ahead of the United States in capturing the burgeoning potential for greater energy productivity and more durable and benign supplies. During 1980–2009, for example, the Danish economy grew by two-thirds, while energy use returned to its 1980 level and carbon emissions fell 21%. Now the conservative Danish government has adopted a virtually self-financing strategy to get completely off fossil fuels by 2050 by further boosting efficiency and switching to renewables (already 36% of electric generation, which is the most reliable and among the cheapest pretax in Europe). Why? To strengthen Denmark’s economy and national security. Europe as a whole is going in the same direction, led by Germany, and now Japan and China are moving that way. What could the U.S. do?

In 2010, the United States (excluding non-combustion uses as raw materials) used 93 quadrillion BTU of primary energy, four-fifths of it fossil fuels. Official projections show this growing to 117 quads in 2050. But delivering those same services with less energy, more productively used, could shrink 2050 usage to 71 quads, eliminate the need for oil, coal, nuclear energy, and one-third of the natural gas, and save $5 trillion in net-present-valued cost. As a better-than-free byproduct of efficient use and a continued shift to renewable supplies, fossil carbon emissions would also shrink by 82–86% below their 2000 levels despite the assumed 2.58-fold bigger economy than in 2010...."

http://www.rmi.org/rfexecutivesummary

[FBaggins]

7. Pretending that there isn't a substantial cost doesn't help your position.

You're far better off claiming that, in the long run, it makes sense anyway.

The simple fact of the matter is that the change (whether to nuclear or renewables or, preferablt, both) requires an incredible investment long before the long-term benefits arrive.

Just look at today's announcement by Mexico. They just decided to get rid of their plans for a nuclear expansion. Because they want more renewables? Nope... because they've found so much cheap natural gas and they don't think that either renewables or nuclear power is something they can afford.

[kristopher]

8. I think it is better for people to read for themselves.

Your "interpretations" are far too self serving and are never supported by anything more than half-assed conclusions derived from vague assertions. Your positions and statements create the appearance that you'd like nothing more than for the general population to accept that there is nothing we can do while the nuclear industry is trying to recover from Fukushima.

Lovins lays it out in detail across the full range of areas where we need to take action. While it is true there is a huge amount of money involved, the fact is that the electricity, transportation, building and industrial sectors move these huge sums of money through their processes as a matter of routine business. There is no shortage of funds, but there is a mis-allocation of those funds due to distortions induced by the industries profiting from the entrenched energy infrastructures.

Reinventing Fire
http://www.rmi.org/rfexecutivesummary

[FBaggins]

9. Your latest spam?

Why on Earth would people want to read it yet again?

Why not come up with an original thought for yourself kris?

And it isn't my "interpretation"... it's what Mexico's new energy minister just said. "changing all its decisions, amid the very abundant existence of natural-gas deposits" "Until we find a model to make renewable energy more profitable, gas is more convenient"

[SpoonFed]

10. You are almost correct in only one point...

The simple fact of the matter is that the change (whether to nuclear or renewables or, preferablt, both) requires an incredible investment long before the long-term benefits arrive.

You are correct in that nuclear requires an incredible investment but incorrect that there is any long-term benefits (nor any short term). Long-term costs include the unsightly risks that nuclear presents including effectively no meaningful compensation for those effected by the inevitable disasters, not to mention in a best case scenario the forever storage requirements of it operating waste. No bother bringing the fact that nobody has built new plants in a dogs age and it takes what, a decade, before the poisonous elephant might go online? No thanks.