Stabilization wedges

13»

Comments

  • 61.
    edited March 2011

    Ok, I've found the source of the 150, just follow this discussion between John and Tim

    Comment Source:Ok, I've found the source of the **150**, just follow this [discussion](http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/stabilization-wedges-part-3/#comment-3089) between John and Tim
  • 62.

    John wrote on the wiki:

    by a factor of 50, starting from its 2004 level. This sounds difficult, but to grow by a factor of 150 over 50 years, wind power would only need to grow at an average annual rate of 10.5%

    isn't it easier to say 8.3% for a factor of 50? I'll change this.

    Of course if people stop eating meat they will need to eat more of something else.

    That's false. Most people in the west (who consume too much meat) are eating too much of everything anyway. And the overconsumption of meat is mainly overconsumption of proteins, it's possible to do with less proteins and still live healthy (or even healthier).

    I don't think there are still people eating meat as their main supplier of energy (maybe the cowboys used to do that, but I think it's not modern anymore). Anyway, if I remember correctly, you can feed 7 vegetarians with the soil needed for one meat-eater, so it's relatively easy to find space to replace meat with cereals etc.

    In the middle ages cattle used to be kept at grounds not well-suited for other agricultural use, but that's not the case anymore. For example, in Belgium, up to 70% of the agricultural land is used to grow livestock fodder (the pigs themselves are grown in factory farms). This still isn't enough fodder so soy and other fodder is also imported from South-America (leading to loss of natural habitats there). Soy there is grown by using fertilizers (produced by burning fossile fuels), otherwise their soils would deplete quickly, leading to too much nitrates and phosphates from the keeping of industrial livestock here.

    Sorry for not providing references yet.

    I thought the original plan had 7. What’s up?

    I suppose the situation grew worse and in 2009 eight wedges were needed.

    Comment Source:John wrote on the wiki: > by a factor of 50, starting from its 2004 level. This sounds difficult, but to grow by a factor of 150 over 50 years, wind power would only need to grow at an average annual rate of 10.5% isn't it easier to say **8.3%** for a factor of 50? I'll change this. > Of course if people stop eating meat they will need to eat more of something else. That's false. Most people in the west (who consume too much meat) are eating too much of everything anyway. And the overconsumption of meat is mainly overconsumption of proteins, it's possible to do with less proteins and still live healthy (or even healthier). I don't think there are still people eating meat as their main supplier of energy (maybe the cowboys used to do that, but I think it's not modern anymore). Anyway, if I remember correctly, you can feed 7 vegetarians with the soil needed for one meat-eater, so it's relatively easy to find space to replace meat with cereals etc. In the middle ages cattle used to be kept at grounds not well-suited for other agricultural use, but that's not the case anymore. For example, in Belgium, up to 70% of the agricultural land is used to grow livestock fodder (the pigs themselves are grown in factory farms). This still isn't enough fodder so soy and other fodder is also imported from South-America (leading to loss of natural habitats there). Soy there is grown by using fertilizers (produced by burning fossile fuels), otherwise their soils would deplete quickly, leading to too much nitrates and phosphates from the keeping of industrial livestock here. Sorry for not providing references yet. > I thought the original plan had 7. What’s up? I suppose the situation grew worse and in 2009 eight wedges were needed.
  • 63.

    In case you're interested, there's the "Less meat, less heat" lecture by Pachauri available here

    Comment Source:In case you're interested, there's the "Less meat, less heat" lecture by Pachauri available [here](http://www.vegetarisme.be/index.php?view=article&catid=37%3Amilieu&id=348%3Aless-meat-less-heat&option=com_content&Itemid=87)
  • 64.
    edited March 2011

    Thanks for the corrections, Frederik.

    I thought the original plan had 7. What’s up?

    I suppose the situation grew worse and in 2009 eight wedges were needed.

    That's possible. I'll have to carefully watch the video before blogging about it.

    In case you're interested, there's the "Less meat, less heat" lecture by Pachauri available here.

    Thanks! I'll add that to

    Carbon footprint - Livestock

    I think we can and should make a good case for eating less meat!

    Comment Source:Thanks for the corrections, Frederik. > > I thought the original plan had 7. What’s up? > I suppose the situation grew worse and in 2009 eight wedges were needed. That's possible. I'll have to carefully watch the video before blogging about it. > In case you're interested, there's the "Less meat, less heat" lecture by Pachauri available here. Thanks! I'll add that to [[Carbon+footprint#Livestock|Carbon footprint - Livestock]] I think we can and should make a good case for eating less meat!
  • 65.
    edited April 2011

    I've updated

    Stabilization wedges

    using material on the blog entry Stabilization wedges (part 5) and Nathan Urban and Martin Gisser's comments about the changing economy, the ocean sink and the land sink.

    This page Stabilization wedges is pretty nice now! Someday when I don't have enough to do I may write a This Week's Finds based on it, which would give me an excuse to polish it into a more readable article. But it's already nicely organized pile of information.

    Next maybe it's time to talk about Joe Romm's modified version of the stabilization wedges:

    The Full Global Warming Solution

    Comment Source:I've updated [[Stabilization wedges]] using material on the blog entry [Stabilization wedges (part 5)](http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/stabilization-wedges-part-5/) and Nathan Urban and Martin Gisser's comments about the changing economy, the ocean sink and the land sink. This page [[Stabilization wedges]] is pretty nice now! Someday when I don't have enough to do I may write a This Week's Finds based on it, which would give me an excuse to polish it into a more readable article. But it's already nicely organized pile of information. Next maybe it's time to talk about Joe Romm's modified version of the stabilization wedges: [[The Full Global Warming Solution]]
  • 66.

    I haven't read the articles, but in general one should be careful to solely use NDVI to jump to conclusions (on the Wikipedia page there are some limitations spelled out) because it's a very simple relation derived from just two spectral bands.

    (I suppose decline of growth is indeed the most likely cause of a decline in NDVI, but nevertheless)

    Anyway,

    some recent research on CO2 fertilization looks worrisome

    seems a prudent formulation to me.

    Comment Source:I haven't read the articles, but in general one should be careful to solely use [NDVI](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDVI) to jump to conclusions (on the Wikipedia page there are some limitations spelled out) because it's a very simple relation derived from just two spectral bands. (I suppose decline of growth is indeed the most likely cause of a decline in NDVI, but nevertheless) Anyway, > some recent research on CO2 fertilization looks worrisome seems a prudent formulation to me.
  • 67.

    Since you know more about vegetation than me, Frederik, you shouldn't feel shy about correcting and improving pages on this topic! Indeed I was wondering about how Martin was using the NDVI to tackle questions about carbon dioxide fertilization - for all I know there could be lots of carbon dioxide fertilization while simultaneously plants are dying from heat.

    Comment Source:Since you know more about vegetation than me, Frederik, you shouldn't feel shy about correcting and improving pages on this topic! Indeed I was wondering about how Martin was using the NDVI to tackle questions about carbon dioxide fertilization - for all I know there could be lots of carbon dioxide fertilization while simultaneously plants are dying from heat.
  • 68.

    for all I know there could be lots of carbon dioxide fertilization while simultaneously plants are dying from heat.

    What do you mean exactly? I don't understand it well.

    If a plant is under heat stress it will capture less carbon because water is on the same side of carbon dioxide in the photosynthesis reaction (simplistically speaking, its leaves will deteriorate)

    Comment Source:> for all I know there could be lots of carbon dioxide fertilization while simultaneously plants are dying from heat. What do you mean exactly? I don't understand it well. If a plant is under heat stress it will capture less carbon because water is on the same side of carbon dioxide in the photosynthesis reaction (simplistically speaking, its leaves will deteriorate)
  • 69.
    edited April 2011

    What you're saying makes sense. I guess I was wondering: suppose carbon dioxide levels increase (thus, let us assume for the sake of argument, increasing plant growth) and make the Earth get hotter (thus, let us assume for the sake of argument, decreasing plant growth). We have two effects on plant growth, one directly caused by CO2 and the other indirectly caused by it. Only the first effect is to be included when we measure "carbon dioxide fertilization", right?

    Comment Source:What you're saying makes sense. I guess I was wondering: suppose carbon dioxide levels increase (thus, let us assume for the sake of argument, increasing plant growth) and make the Earth get hotter (thus, let us assume for the sake of argument, decreasing plant growth). We have two effects on plant growth, one directly caused by CO<sub>2</sub> and the other indirectly caused by it. Only the first effect is to be included when we measure "carbon dioxide fertilization", right?
  • 70.

    Only the first effect is to be included when we measure "carbon dioxide fertilization", right?

    Yes, this is also how I understand it: the growth induced by higher atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide

    By the way, when I mentioned heat stress I meant drought, which is indeed not a necessary consequence of heat.

    (Vegetation stress is a term used in the literature, but that's less specific)

    Comment Source:> Only the first effect is to be included when we measure "carbon dioxide fertilization", right? Yes, this is also how I understand it: *the growth induced by higher atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide* By the way, when I mentioned *heat stress* I meant *drought*, which is indeed not a necessary consequence of heat. (*Vegetation stress* is a term used in the literature, but that's less specific)
  • 71.

    Okay, so I'm not crazy. My earlier comment was trying to say that the paper on NDVI, and maybe some of the other papers linked to on this page, are only indirectly relevant to the official topic of this page: carbon dioxide fertilization. So, someday someone may find a better place for them.

    Comment Source:Okay, so I'm not crazy. My earlier comment was trying to say that the paper on NDVI, and maybe some of the other papers linked to on this page, are only indirectly relevant to the official topic of this page: carbon dioxide fertilization. So, someday someone may find a better place for them.
  • 72.
    edited April 2013

    While writing a talk I felt the need to update some information about Pacala and Socolow's "stabilization wedges". So, I've added a short section to Stabilization wedges called "Socolow's reaffirmation":


    In 2011, Socolow said the number of wedges required to hold carbon emissions constant for the next 50 years (i.e., until 2061) had gone up from 7 to 9:

    wedge

    Comment Source:While writing a talk I felt the need to update some information about Pacala and Socolow's "stabilization wedges". So, I've added a short section to [[Stabilization wedges]] called "Socolow's reaffirmation": <hr/> In 2011, Socolow said the number of wedges required to hold carbon emissions constant for the next 50 years (i.e., until 2061) had gone up from 7 to 9: * Robert Socolow, [Wedges reaffirmed](http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/socolow/Wedges-reaffirmed-PLUS-ten-soliticed-comments-9-29-11.pdf). <img src = "http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ecological/socolow_nine_wedges.jpg" alt = "wedge"/>
  • 73.
    Comment Source:I also added a [2011 reassessment of wind power](http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Stabilization+wedges#WindPower2011) and [solar power](http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Stabilization+wedges#SolarPower2011).
Sign In or Register to comment.