I doubt we can avert a global CO2 crisis.

[lfairban]

I read in the Free Press, published by Bob Fitrakis in Columbus, Ohio, in the Winter 2007 edition article "Crisis and Opportunity" on p. 24, soon to be available on the web Here:

"If in the year 2030, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere remain as high as they are today, the likely result is two degrees centigrade of warming. Two degrees is the point beyond which certain major ecosystems begin collapsing. Having, until then, absorbed carbon dioxide, they begin to release it. Beyond this point climate change is out of our hands: it will accelerate without our help. The only means by which we can ensure that there is a hight chance that the temperature does not rise to this point is for the rich nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent by 2030."

from "Heat: how to Stop the Planet From Burning", by George MonBiot

I am very skeptical that this level of reduction can or will be achieved, which means that if the analysis of the British author quoted above is accurate, we are, in short, doomed.

I think a short technical chemical tutorial on air pollution is appropriate, especially for reading the last of the articles that follow.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a criteria pollutant under the US EPA Clean Air Act, but other Power Generation and Automobile emission pollutants are: Carbon Monoxide (CO), SO2, NO2 and fugitive hydrocarbons. SO2 and NO2 lead to acid rain and hydrocarbons react with light in the atmosphere to produce Ozone (O3).

If you focus on the amount CO2 that results from each unit of energy produced, the biggest problem is coal fired power plants. Coal is almost entirely carbon. Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons (to oversimplify a bit) with the empirical formula Cn H(2n+2). The average number of carbons in gasoline is probably around 8, so if n=8, 2n+2=18 or C8H18. Most of the energy in internal combustion engines comes from burning the hydrogen into water, not from turning the carbon into CO2. The H/C ratio in gasoline is 2.25, whereas in ethanol (C2H7OH) it is 3 (if you count the OH hydrogen). In methane (CH4), the primary component of natural gas, the H/C ratio is 4.

With this in mind, the best available strategy would be to move automobile fuels from gasoline to ethanol and or natural gas, and to end the use of coal fired power plants. Since I have some familiarity with the political power of the Coal lobby in Ohio, I doubt that the latter has much chance any time soon. We may be destroying the planet just to make sure that some Ohio coal miners still have a job. I think it is ridiculous.

Here are some articles I just read from Common Dreams:

UK Plans to Cut CO2 Doomed to Fail - Scientists

China About to Pass US as World's Top Generator of Greenhouse Gases

The Big Green Fuel Lie

"The Big Green Fuel Lie" is also discussed Here

[eppur_se_muova]

1. Ethanol is C2H5OH, and you should take the H/C ratio as 2.

That's because it is essentially C2H4 + H2O, i.e. two of the H's may be regarded as 'burned' already because of the presence of the O, with which they will eventually pair up.

OTOH, what really counts with ethanol is the possibility of producing it in an entirely 'carbon-neutral' fashion. If it weren't for the bottleneck of agricultural production (in terms of both land and energy for production) ethanol would be the overwhelming choice. Natural gas is preferable to coal, but still a long way from carbon-neutral.

[Porcupine]

2. There is absolutley NOTHING on the horizen.

Congress has no climate change proposals that would matter on the table. NONE.

A few things that would help:

1) An immediate carbon tax that would be equivalent to $1.50 per gallon of gas. The money to be spent on hybrid diesel or natural gas buses, upgrades of insulation on low income homes and direct subsidy of solar PV and wind power units.

2) An engine tax that subsidizes stirling generators on a 1 to 1 basis. If you want to sell an new engine to the US you have to produce a stirling generator that produces the equivalent power in kilowatts.

These units could be distributed to solar thermal sites, cogeneration sites in agriculture and industry and small units would work for home and workplace combined/heat/power generation. A percentage of these gensets could be used for hybrid vehicles with multi-fuel capability.

3) A block by block evaluation of every residence and workplace in the US that is tied in to the grid, uses natural gas, propane or coal. Conservation methods designed and implemented for each of these buildings implemented using off-the-shelf tech. Priority given to the northernmost and southernmost as they use the most power for heating/cooling.

4) A carbon tax on all imports that keeps US producers competitive while the above measure are implemented to be reduced as exporting nations establish reductions in emissions.

As is we have some limp subsidies and a few tax credits for hybrids that will not effect any positeve change. My 13 year old kid thinks we are converting her planet to Venus. I think she may be right.

[GliderGuider]

3. "for the rich nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent by 2030."

It's statements like this that that keep me from getting out of bed in the morning. I remember the feeling I had when I first read it in Monbiot's book. I knew instantly that he was in the right ballpark, and as I thought about all the exhortations I'd been reading to use compact fluorescent lights and eat one vegetarian meal a week, a tidal wave of dread washed over me.

As far as I can tell the scale of the threat completely dwarfs our willingness or ability to counter it.