Climate change: Problem would remain solved by giving up the use of fossil fuels?
1. In the context of ‘global greenhouse gas emissions by gas’, even if we ignore (a) CO2 release from forestry and other land use (11%); (b) methane (16%); (c) nitrous oxide (6%); (d) fluorinated gases (2%); to what extent, will we be able to curtail 65% release of CO2 from fossil fuel and industrial processes?
If not, does it mean that “Are we addicted to fossil fuels?” “We’’ means whom do we refer to? (Those, who are in their 20’s or 60’s: Who exactly was addicted? And, I personally think that it may not be fair to bring everyone on the same platform by suddenly start concerning about their future generations) Well, if I cannot curtail (a) 24% global greenhouse gas emissions by ‘agriculture, forestry & other land use’; (b) 25% by electricity & heat production; (c) 14% by transportation’ (d) 6% by buildings; then, how could the curtailment essentially by industry from its 20% is going to make a huge impact (leaving aside the 10% of global greenhouse gas emission by other energy forms)? Are we going to expect a drastic reduction from China, US & India from its current global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (and some other industrial processes)?
2. How long oil & gas industry would continue maintaining it’s contribution to the global economy and to it’s growth and development @ global-scale ‘significantly’?
Whether it’s current global domestic product of 3% would come down drastically in the near future?
Whether oil & gas industry’s status as one of the world’s most traded commodities may soon change in the near future?
If so, what is the rate @ which the trade in crude oil would come down in the next 10 years – from its current value of around US$650 billion?
In case, if the rate of decline remains to be significant, then, how about the employment provided by the oil and gas industries – from its current employable capacity of around 12 million people per annum globally?
3. Well, even, if we get along with Paris agreement – by not bothering about the way each and every oil & gas industry that gets affected (and in turn, its massive employability @ global-scale), are we sure that we will have no more environmental concerns that will become a threat to sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions "by any other means" on this earth?
I personally feel that only the nature of the problem will keep on changing from time to time, while, science and technology cannot provide any solution to get rid-off all the problems faced by human being as we have started challenging the nature - in the name of science and technology - rather than trying to understand its very nature.
It's similar to trying to understand on what exactly happens to my energy after my last breathe - having known that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed.
Agendas for achieving sustainability in order to address these questions:
1. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8959-2_2
2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imic.2015.04.001
3. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-02-2017-0043
Problem would remain solved by giving up the use of fossil fuels? I don't think so. "A study of effects of terrestrial biota on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere suggests that the global net release of carbon due to forest clearing between 1860 and 1980 was between 135 × 1015 and 228 × 1015 grams. Between 1.8 × 1015 and 4.7 × 1015 grams of carbon were released in 1980, of which nearly 80 percent was due to deforestation, principally in the tropics. The annual release of carbon from the biota and soils exceeded the release from fossil fuels until about 1960. Because the biotic release has been and remains much larger than is commonly assumed, the airborne fraction, usually considered to be about 50 percent of the release from fossil fuels, was probably between 22 and 43 percent of the total carbon released in 1980. The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is thought by some to be increasing the storage of carbon in the earth's remaining forests sufficiently to offset the release from deforestation. The interpretation of the evidence presented here suggests no such effect; deforestation appears to be the dominant biotic effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide. If deforestation increases in proportion to population, the biotic release of carbon will reach 9 × 1015 grams per year before forests are exhausted early in the next century. The possibilities for limiting the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through reduction in use of fossil fuels and through management of forests may be greater than is commonly assumed".
In Italics is the abstract of the well-cited old paper:
Woodwell, G. M., Hobbie, J. E., Houghton, R. A., Melillo, J. M., Moore, B., Peterson, B. J., & Shaver, G. R. (1983). Global deforestation: contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 222(4628), 1081-1086.
View
From Climate Change to Global Environmental Change. Very early on, well-advised researchers understood that environmental issues are intertwined and cannot be understood according to compartmentalized disciplinary approaches. In this respect, and as an example, this relatively old chapter spoke of “Global Environmental Change.”
Fleagle, R. G., & Fleagle, R. G. (2001). Global environmental change. Eyewitness: Evolution of the Atmospheric Sciences, 101-107.
Abstract: "During the 1970s research had advanced the frontiers of understanding for a broad array of environmental problems: climate, stratospheric ozone, air quality, the carbon cycle, water resources, biological diversity, soil properties, and still others. For the most part each was studied independently of the others using more or less unique observation systems and by separate groups of scientists. However, it was evident that environmental problems were becoming more and more interdisciplinary and that observations were needed that could specify the whole phenomenon of interest, often on a sub-global or global scale, phenomena identified under “global environmental change.”
Comments. Question: How accelerated in the scientific integration of disciplines; would it be at the level of research? Personal answer: Very little to say nothing at all despite the very timid attempts of scientific organizations with mixed success, such as those of the IPCC for instance.
Energy, Renewable Energy, and Levelized Cost Of Energy (LCOE) Paradoxes. Gerard Reid (2020) stated about Energy: "The choices and approaches... are governed by the following paradoxes...: 1. The Utility Paradox; 2. The Market Efficiency Paradox; 3. Jevons Paradox; 4. The NIMBY Paradox 5. The Renewable Energy Paradox 6. The Philosophy Paradox". On the other hand, Adam Szymański (2020) showed that the Leverezed Cost Of Energy (LCOE) definition is incorrect as it leads to an Economic Paradox.
Gerard Reid (2020) The Six Energy Paradoxes that slow the sector’s progress. Available on: https://energypost.eu/the-six-energy-paradoxes-that-slow-the-sectors-progress/
Szymański, A. (2020). Levelized cost of energy definition–An economic paradox. The Electricity Journal, 33(7). To be requested on:
Article Levelized cost of energy definition – An economic paradox
See also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Energy_Renewable_Energy_and_Levelized_Cost_Of_Energy_LCOE_Paradoxes
Iceland volcano erupts on Reykjanes peninsula (BBC, 4 hours ago). Volcanic eruptions, always Fascinating in Beauty and Majesty, remind us in a spectacular way of essential factors in the heat balance of the globe: the transfers at the Visible Lithosphere-Atmosphere Interface in the form of Seismic and Volcanic Activities and the transfers at the Lithosphere-Hydrosphere interface, Invisible because they occur at the bottom of the oceans. Unlike the GHE, the effects of these activities on Climate Change are not well analyzed, at least in Climate Models, including those used in IPCC projections.
Illustration Source: ICELANDIC MET OFFICE:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67756413
See Also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Adaptation_and_Resilience_to_Climate_Change_Temporal_Paradox_versus_Chronology_Protection_Conjecture
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Climate_Change_and_Climate_Models_Progress_and_LimitsArticle Predictability of water resources with global climate models...
Several publications indicate that Coal exploitation and Trade is a sector with substantial opportunity for corruption, especially as it expands into new International Markets. The paper by Setyawati D., 2022, "Injustice and environmental harm in extractive industries and solar energy policies in Indonesia. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 11(1): 14-27" is, as such, instructive. One may read there: "...the persistent enthusiasm for coal energy and the ambitious deployment of renewable energy may have led to injustices in the energy system , short-sighted corrupt practices, and environmental harm...". The author arrives at a more general conclusion: he demonstrates "how the marginalization of rural communities and production of environmental harm has been perpetuated by powerful figures, reinforced since colonialism, and escalated by the demands of the Global North..."
Read on:
https://20.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/IntJlCrimJustSocDem/2022/3.html
See Also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Energy_Renewable_Energy_and_Levelized_Cost_Of_Energy_LCOE_Paradoxes
An interesting paper by Johnson, Carol. "Variants of Populism." ANU Press, 2023. "Definitions of populism remain highly contested; however, ‘us’ versus ‘them’ arguments are a regular trope in populism. For example, populism commonly mobilises the people against claimed powerful, corrupt elites.. Conclusion : ..Labor’s electorally cautious climate change policies could make it harder to counter Teals’ and Greens’ campaigns mobilising the people against political elites accused of selling out to big business carbon emitters. Populism, in its various forms, seems likely to continue to play a role in Australian electionsPopulism, in its various forms, seems likely to continue to play a role in Australian elections."
Available on: https://hekyll.services.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/139321/2/hdl_139321.pdf
See Also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_and_history_serving_political_and_ideological_totalitarianism
In these festive days, I would like to mention this 30 year old Paper, "Joy A. Palmer (1993) From Santa Claus to sustainability: emerging understanding of concepts and issues in environmental science, International Journal of Science Education, 15:5 , 487-495", in which the author discusses the nature and development of children's early knowledge and awareness of environmental issues. as strange as it may seem, we learn that "pre‐school children may well have a strong base of accurate scientific knowledge upon which early years environmental teaching may build." Happy Holidays For All
See Also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Adaptation_and_Resilience_to_Climate_Change_Temporal_Paradox_versus_Chronology_Protection_Conjecture