The 14 "Carbon Bombs" About to Blow Up the Planet
These projects to increase production of fossil fuels are being planned around the world. But if all of them come to fruition, it may be the last fossil fuels we produce, because the combined effect will be to raise the planet's temperature disastrously.
The 14 "Carbon Bombs" About to Blow Up the Planet
Image:
By Ben Schiller
These projects to increase production of fossil fuels are being planned around the world. But if all of them come to fruition, it may be the last fossil fuels we produce, because the combined effect will be to raise the planet's temperature disastrously.
If you believe in the possibilities of corporate responsibility--or for that matter, basic human kindness--you probably shouldn't read Greenpeace's latest climate change report. It might shake your faith.
Why? Because its conclusion is so stark and so simple, and yet so widely and willfully ignored: If we go ahead with 14 major fossil fuel projects now on the drawing board (you can see them above), we'll have a good chance of destroying the world as we know it. Or, to put it less emotionally: We'll sail right through carbon limits most scientists agree are safe for the atmosphere.
Take a look at the slide show for a graphic sense of the danger. From coal production in Australia, China, and Indonesia, to deepwater oil projects in Brazil and the Arctic, to tar sands in Canada and Venezuela, to shale gas and conventional gas in the U.S. and the Caspian Sea, the world is set for a big push on the dirtiest forms of energy development. Together, Greenpeace says the projected output will increase emissions 20% by 2020, thus "locking in" long-term temperature increases in the 5 to 6 degrees Celsius range. Scientists normally call 2 degrees a relatively safe limit--and until recently that was the consensus in the international community as well.
"With total disregard for this unfolding global disaster, the fossil fuel industry is planning 14 massive coal, oil, and gas projects that would produce as much new carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2020 as the entire U.S., and delay action on climate change for more than a decade," the report says.
Of course, you might think the numbers skewed because they come from beardy environmentalists with an agenda. Except, in this case, the numbers aren't Greenpeace's. They were commissioned from Ecofys, an environmental consultancy. More than that, the report says essentially the same thing as the International Energy Agency (which last year reported that we could not burn more than one third of fossil fuel reserves by 2050 to remain within 2 degrees), and the World Bank which says we're on course for a 4-degree increase by century's end.
Greenpeace says the 14 developments would produce 54,674 million tons of coal, 29,400 billion cubic meters of natural gas, and 260,000 million barrels of oil--but add 330 billion tons of CO2-equivalent emissions by 2050 (see here for the methodology). To stay within the 2-degree increase, emissions have to start falling before 2015, which means canceling, rather than rushing ahead, with some of the plans on the table. That doesn't seem likely--but it is the wide consensus not only of the enviro-lobby, but of plenty of sensible people who've studied the issue.
[All Images: Shutterstock]
Copyright 2013 by
Fast Company. Reprinted with permission.
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add CommentAnd yet Greenpeace won't acknowledge the important role it has played and continues to play in ABSOLUTELY ENSURING the rapid growth in fossil fuel burning. Greenpeace fought viciously against the last Nuclear Build, which had it continued, would have replaced virtually all Coal power production in Western Nations with zero-emissions Nuclear Energy, by now. And Greenpeace's #1 agenda is still to block zero-CO2 Nuclear Energy from replacing fossil fuels. Nuclear being the ONLY source of energy capable of replacing Fossil Fuels, as-a-matter-of-fact, there is no alternative apart from Nuclear to replacing a significant portion of Fossil Fuel consumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConclusion: Greenpeace is guilty of despiccable hypocracy, and should be held to account for their environmentally destructive efforts.
What a silly article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt tries to paint a picture of the evil fossil fuel companies. LOL, these are companies made up of people like you and I and are no different than any other company. They are trying to provide products/services that people want to purchase.
There are not other forms of energy production that are as efficient for the consumer. (with the exception of nuclear which is stalled by propaganda)
People should stop pushing for CO2 mitigation projects to be implemented that are expensive and will do nothing to lessen future bad weather. There is only so much money available and it should be spent wisely.
If you are concerned about harm from a changing climate the absolute best action to take is to construct and maintain a robust infrastructure. Places that do this will suffer minimal harms from bad weather- those that don't will suffer.
Sorry people, cost overruns, lengthy build times and safety concerns killed off nuclear power in the 80's. Plants originally slated to cost a few billion to build ballooned to $20B or more, from the Pacific Northwest to Ontario and everywhere in between. The only reason these nuke boosters say the power from nuclear plants is so cheap is because the billion$$$ in bad debt the companies accumulated while building these plants have already been offloaded onto their customers and taxpayers as a whole in massive bailouts. I have posted proof time and time again that nuclear power isn't as great as these nuke boosters claim it is, but they just make up fanciful conspiracy theories to explain away the shortcomings of these massively expensive reactors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn February, 1985, Forbes magazine declared that “[t]he failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale. The utility industry has already invested $125 billion in nuclear power, with an additional $140 billion to come before the decade is out, and only the blind, or the biased, can now think that most of the money has been well spent.”
A few new reactors are going up in the USA and China is struggling to get nuclear power from the 1% of electrical generation it is right now to the 6% they hope to achieve by 2020. Consequently, nuclear will play a limited role in mitigating climate change in the 21st Century. It is just too slow to build and too expensive to make plants safe enough in the post-Fukushima era. Maybe reactors incorporating newer technology will be more effective, but we will need a decade or two just to build test reactors and see how they will function commercially. In the mean time (until about 2030), we should continue and even INCREASE our investments in renewable energy and efficiency. These approaches have been PROVEN to redue emissions and we have no clear idea on their ultimate potential.
Sisko:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery time an article regarding climate change is presented, you either lie about climate trends or push for a "robust infrastructure". Please give us examples of how a "robust infrastructure" would counterbalance desertification, ocean acidification, more intense wildfires and droughts, a shift in agricultural zones and a decrease in crop productivity, a decrease in biodiversity (which would affect us; don't respond that it wouldn't), and a change/depletion in freshwater resources, all of which may have already been observed or are theorized to be impacts of a warmer earth.
BTW: The fossil fuel industry may not be "evil" in the way you describe it, but many members of it come pretty close with their attempts to dissuade public opinion/knowledge with a shrewdly architectured propaganda machine; a machine that not only outright lies but provides millions in lobbyist funding and campaign contributions to those who are supposed to represent constituents, not big business.
moss boss
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat makes you believe that desertification, ocean acidification, more intense wildfires and droughts, a shift in agricultural zones and a decrease in crop productivity, a decrease in biodiversity (which would affect us; don't respond that it wouldn't), and a change/depletion in freshwater resources, are going to be a problem to a greater degree in the future than they are now?
Should people have to react because of someone's elses unjustified fears or faith?
Thank's for replying; You do not reply to me often. Interesting that you bring faith into it, as faith in many cases is dispelled by science. I am not sure as to your motive; Is it the promotion of the fossil fuel industry or the promotion of the "I am a dim-witted troll who finds personal value in the false assumption that the minority opinion may be correct in the shadow of substantial scientific evidence and theory" industry?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S.:
You already have shown your true colors on another post where you referenced scientists that are paid by the fossil fuel industry.
"What makes you believe that desertification, ..., are going to be a problem to a greater degree in the future than they are now?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are two simple answers, which have been pointed out many, many times before, but you can't seem to come to grips with them. There is a lag in the energy increase effect, primary because it takes a while for the oceans to reach a new equilibrium, and because no equilibrium will be reached until some time after we quit changing the composition of the atmosphere. There are basic laws of physics which determine these, starting with the conservation of matter and energy.
Chris
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI asked a question that you failed to address.
You believe that these conditions will occur and you believe that because you trust the outputs of various models and the analysis others have made based on those models.
I do not BECAUSE the models have not done an even reasonably good job of forecasting observed conditions. In addition, the entire process of the use of models is completely contrary to accepted engineering practices. You should never make decisions based on averaging the results of multiple invalidated models of unknown quality.
What part of same energy flow in and less energy flow out results in a higher energy state do you not understand?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a very simple model for you. What part of that model do you think is wrong?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChris G.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again you fail you answer and try to dodge the key question. What makes you believe a warmer world will result in net harms? You must know by now that since the rate of warming is much less than was previously forecasted by folks like Hansen then the predicted harms will also be greatly lessened.
What do you think is the greatest net harm to the USA of the world?
Once again you fail to understand the answer, and you appear to have given up on whatever you were trying to say about models because you are changing the subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModels, models, models! Spare me!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere are the observed results that show tiny, tiny anthropogenic C.O.2 quantity's capability to completely overwhelm each and every one of the other comparatively massive climate drivers.
I'm not talking about correlation. I'm referring to observed causation.
You are right: But let's take it further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEach person must be held socially responsible for their own Thoughts, Feelings, as well as their Actions.
With the volcanic activity above and below the oceans, poring heat and gasses into the system at unprecedented levels.
The effects of human actions on global warming are infinitesimal .
I agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe large Qty of active volcanic activity above and below the oceans MUST have a major effect. Far outweighing the human effects on the climate.
Human activity produces over 100 times the amount of CO2 that volcanoes do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this