Climate change evident across Europe, says report

[xchrom]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20408350


The cost of damage from extreme weather events is projected to increase in the future

The effects of climate change are already evident in Europe and the situation is set to get worse, the European Environment Agency has warned.

In a report, the agency says the past decade in Europe has been the warmest on record.

It adds that the cost of damage caused by extreme weather events is rising, and the continent is set to become more vulnerable in the future.

[NoOneMan]

1. The worst it gets, the more oil we will have to burn to fight it

Man will develop more and more complex methods of keeping the water at bay, increasing crop yields in droughts and rebuilding environment-cause destruction. All this activity will require energy, and it will all be subject to diminishing returns the more we throw at it. Are we going to always have enough energy to keep this up, keep mouths full, and keep growing (excluding growth in the industry of building dykes)? And whats all that consumption mean to the environment?

[AverageJoe90]

2. Your title makes absolutely no sense.

We won't HAVE to burn oil to do all that, Of course not, if we do everything right.

[NoOneMan]

4. We will have magic energy to power the cranes?

Will we fuel the mining vehicles (that pull up resources we need for building things) with smiles and happiness?

Hell, even our crop yields are subsidized with oil, with no realistic path towards sustainable agriculture (oxymoron) that feeds 8 to 9 billion people. Maybe we can fertilize the corn crops with hope and change.

[AverageJoe90]

5. Ever heard of alternative fuels? /snark

The answer is, No, we don't need petroleum.

First of all, concerning diesel engines, you do realize that they can run on vegetable oil with relative ease, right?

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/converting-diesel-engines-to-run-on-vegetable-oil.html
http://www.prattsinn.com/grease_car.html
http://www.zible.com/travel/vw-polo-running-on-vegetable-oil-no-modification-needed/112/

I mean, come on, if an everyday Joe or Jane can do this, then it shouldn't be at all hard for corporations to begin making the switch.

And that's just one thing.

[NoOneMan]

6. Do you know how many veggies you need to feed the tractors that exploit the earth's resources

You've been given the math multiple times by multiple people regarding yields and required acreage needed to fuel today's production. These machines are burning the earth's legacy; millions of years of the suns solar energy stored beneath ground are being unlocked in a flash in time, and you think we can infinitely power this level of exploitation/production with real-time biological solar yields (without subsidizing crop yields with oil-based fertilizer and depleted potash, all while the earth is experiencing flooding and drought)? The math is fuzzier than Romney's tax cut plan.

While you take a hard look at it, make sure you ask Malaysia just how carbon neutral their biofuels industry is after they experienced 83% deforestation (of a massive carbon sink) for palm oil production.

Pipe dreams is what it all is. The math doesn't work. But growth must continue. Civilization will not let you see this clearly.

[AverageJoe90]

9. There you go again with the "infinite" schtick.

You've been given the math multiple times by multiple people regarding yields and required acreage needed to fuel today's production.

Concerning hemp, yes. But again, what I said was, it certainly would be doable for corporations to start relying more on biofuels like vegetable oil, instead of petroleum.

These machines are burning the earth's legacy; millions of years of the suns solar energy stored beneath ground are being unlocked in a flash in time,

True, but these are hydrocarbons, though, not solar energy.

and you think we can infinitely power this level of exploitation/production

Again with the "infinitely" schtick.

with real-time biological solar yields (without subsidizing crop yields with oil-based fertilizer and depleted potash, all while the earth is experiencing flooding and drought)?

Pipe dreams is what it all is.

No, not really. I have admitted in the past, that of course, biofuels aren't really a silver bullet by any stretch; same thing goes with adaptation, less consumption, etc., though all of those things would help mitigate the problem.

What is a pipe dream, however, is thinking that we can solve our problem by not consuming energy. But of course, facts don't always matter to devotees to a pet theory, do they?

[NoOneMan]

11. A few things:

1. Vegetable oil or hemp--What difference does it make? Its all about average joules per acre yielded on average land in production with no hydrocarbon inputs, without lowering existing carbon sink of that land. In fact, hemp has been generously assumed to have a much higher joule per acre yield, so frankly, you will need much more land to fuel this production with palm, rapeseed, canola or some other type of biofuel

2. Hydrocarbons are a form of solar energy storage. I don't see understand any type of distinction

3. If not infinity, you must know of a specific point in the expansion of technology, population and economic growth where we plan to stop, right?

4. A "pet theory" is how you basically describe the entire scientific concept of green house gasses and global warming? Forgive me for extrapolating that in order to reduce atmospheric carbon, we have to actually reduce carbon emissions.

[AverageJoe90]

12. .....

In fact, hemp has been generously assumed to have a much higher joule per acre yield,

Where, exactly, did you hear this?

A "pet theory" is how you basically describe the entire scientific concept of green house gasses and global warming?

Please don't take me out of context. The pet theories I'm talking about, are ones like reducing consumption of all types of energy, period, will a silver bullet that solves the climate change issue, or Malcolm Light's belief that all life will be extinct my mid-century, etc.

Forgive me for extrapolating that in order to reduce atmospheric carbon, we have to actually reduce carbon emissions.

Yes we do, and in fact, I never implied otherwise. But we don't have to stop consuming ALL energy, just those forms of it which are causing major pollution in the atmosphere such as coal, gas, or petrol. And while stopping consumption of these certain fuels would indeed be beneficial in the long run, I've come to the conclusion that the time has passed for that alone to be fully effective, and that we'll also need to consider carbon sequestration as well; planting trees, especially ones such as mangroves, would be a good start.

[NoOneMan]

13. Well,

Where, exactly, did you hear this?

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jan12/crop0112.pdf

Hemp was 82.4 giga joules per acre, which I based my calculations on. Palm oil, which is king of the biofuels, is difficult to pin down in terms of yields (2 to 4 tons an acre) and joules per yield (play with numbers and it will be above or below that rate, but in any case, its not as versatile and replaces a much better carbon sink in its limited habitat--the more versatile crops needed for other climates are not this high). Outsize of algae, you need masses of acres of this stuff accounting for maybe more than the available farmable area of the earth.

The pet theories I'm talking about, are ones like reducing consumption of all types of energy, period, will a silver bullet that solves the climate change issue

Reducing energy consumption will reduce carbon emissions. This is an objective fact. You are confusing science with pet theories.

A theory is that burning oil now to create solar panels and windmills will lead humans to emit less carbon in the atmosphere over a 50 year span, which relies on changing the fabric of human civilization such that it no longer utilizes all surplus of energy for growth.

But we don't have to stop consuming ALL energy, just those forms of it which are causing major pollution in the atmosphere such as coal, gas, or petrol.

Biofuels cause problems as well and are not carbon neutral. My Orangutan buddy told me all about it and I would urge you to talk to him, but he is dead now.

planting trees, especially ones such as mangroves, would be a good start.

Now here is some major common ground

[NoOneMan]

14. Thinking about biofuel

In an altered state, I was thinking that any soil that could yield significant biofuel would also naturally act as a large sink of carbon. To put it another way, if you see a bunch of ugly weeds on a dry field, don't think you are going to magically convert that to biofuel without significant inputs, as that land probably sucks. But the good land is mostly taken, by either nature or agriculture.

So assuming you want decent yields, you will need to clear out some land--preferably without starving people. This means you essentially have to target some of the best natural carbon sinks (or the best required to provide land for maximum yields, since marginal yields need more land). And I wondered if anyone has put a number on exactly how much carbon you are releasing when you cultivate it and turn it into a carbon recycler (its not a sink, as all collected carbon would be burned in a cycle). It turns out, a couple have.

Increasing energy use, climate change, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels make switching to low-carbon fuels a high priority. Biofuels are a potential low-carbon energy source, but whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on how they are produced. Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food crop–based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a “biofuel carbon debt” by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels. In contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on degraded and abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and can offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.

Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt

For the two most common ethanol feedstocks, the study found that sugarcane ethanol produced on natural cerrado lands would take ~17 years to repay its carbon debt, while corn ethanol produced on U.S. central grasslands would result in a repayment time of ~93 years. The worst-case scenario is converting Indonesian or Malaysian tropical peatland rainforest to palm biodiesel production, which would require ~420 years to repay.

Wiki ILUC

So, if we were to switch to biofuel tomorrow, we would have to release immediately the carbon from 15 billion acres (needed to replace dirty oils) of some of the best sinks, causing a massive carbon emissions increase that could not even be negated for decades when we are already in the pressure cooker (needing instant reduction in atmospheric co2). Further, you actually reducing the ability of the earth to capture carbon, as you are converting good carbon storage land into carbon recycling land.

So if it takes a hundred or so years to get back to today's 400 ppm baseline, can humanity wait that long to pay back this carbon debt?

[AverageJoe90]

3. Yes unfortunately, that does seem to be the case.

A lot of research is saying we could have more droughts and hurricanes here in the U.S......so yeah. But at least it's practically impossible for the ACC deniers to peddle their bullshit anymore, thanks to all the extreme weather.

[NoOneMan]

8. As it becomes more and more overtly evident people will...

shift from denial to casual dismissal of potential consequences.

[pscot]

7. The North Europeans get it

[AverageJoe90]

10. Yes, indeed.

Sweden instituted a carbon tax back in the early '90s. It's done wonders for them, and we could do the same here in the U.S., too, if our leaders had enough balls.