Even James Hansen and Bill McKibben would scoff at this paltry reduction.
Bloomberg’s goal is to cut 1.3 billion tons of emissions (presumably annually) by 2030. Current annual global emissions are 34.5 billion metric tons and growing!
Even James Hansen and Bill McKibben would scoff at this paltry reduction.
Bloomberg’s goal is to cut 1.3 billion tons of emissions (presumably annually) by 2030. Current annual global emissions are 34.5 billion metric tons and growing!
According to Skeptical Science, which is a warmist blog (they claim to be skeptical of skeptics), naturally occurring CO2 emissions run 771 GT annually. Industry emits 34.5 GT. If humans are producing 5% of a gas whose heat-retaining capacity is mostly saturated, we can pretty much leave human CO2 production out of the discussion of what is altering the climate (if anything is). So reducing CO2 by 1GT is, as Mr. Milloy says, utterly pointless.
There is nothing about industrial production of CO2 that would change how it is absorbed and cycled through the various processes that handle CO2 in the ecosystem.
SS’s blog claims two levels of explanation for human vs natural CO2, basic and intermediate. Both levels go on to say that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, which of course is true, and to imply that the small contribution of human CO2 is enough to overwhelm the CO2 cycle. If their basic numbers on CO2 production are correct, well and good, but the implication of humans overwhelming the system seems implausible.
Oddly enough, finding a straightforward measure of “Humans produce X CO2 annually and natural processes produce Y CO2 annually” is very hard to come by with a Bing search.
As our friends here will point out, though, this is about how to run everyone’s life rather than how to protect the environment.