Global Warming by the Numbers
May 1st, 2007 by 
Morgan J. Locke
Update: Corrected carbon dioxide levels to reflect latest research.
Shakespeare once asked, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
What we name things, for the most part, is arbitrary. Numbers, on the other hand—despite what I told my sister when we were young*—are non-negotiable. They are what they are, and they are the same no matter what you name them. Three apples is three apples if you live in Delhi, New York, or Pluto.
I’ve avoided posting regarding global warming lately, despite the numerous milestones that have recently been reached, in large part because the main verdict in the latest IPCC findings is so clear, and so dire. To paraphrase the Oracle, you seem like good people, and I hate giving good people bad news.
But the news is dire. There is no getting around it. Business as usual means that eventually our atmosphere will contain 1,000 ppm of carbon dioxide, resulting in green skies, bacteria-choked, purple-and-green seas, a sodden, dead, steamed, ecosystem. Maybe some small subset of humanity will ultimately survive, albeit greatly diminished, under the business-as-usual scenario. And no doubt in several tens of millions of years, there will be another thriving ecosystem, if Earth has another cycle or so in her, as I suspect she does. But it does not take a lot of imagination to see her moving on without us, and without all the marvels of life that surround us, on the land, in the skies, and in the seas.
When I first heard that many experts believe we are nearing global peak oil, if we are not already there, I thought that maybe that would mean at least the worst global warming effects would be averted. But it actually might make things worse rather than better. For instance, our system of large-scale agriculture, which feeds about 6.5 billion people (more numbers!), depends upon natural gas for the fertilizers that boost yields enough to feed so many. It also depends on transportation to carry the goods to distant lands. Contrary to what many believe, peak oil does not mean the end of oil. It means the end of cheap oil. It means our civilization will be struggling to suck in enough energy to support itself, like an emphyzema patient trying to get enough air into his lungs, while governments become overwhelmed by crisis, less able to afford research into alternate energy technologies, and so forth.
Global warming deniers seem to be gradually losing the public relations argument that the science is not there, and are now arguing that there is no point in doing anything, or that the effects might even be good. But don’t let their obfuscation, nor the complexity of the minutiae buried in the science of global warming, fool you. Climate science is hugely complex. There is room for discussion about the size of various effects. Scientists are notorious for being cautious in their explanations, with lots of caveats and digressions.
But there is no ambiguity about one thing. Further global warming means lots of people will die, and many more species will go extinct. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentrations were at 280 ppm. They are now at 381, and headed upward at an accelerating rate. Regardless of what we do, there will be famine, drought, sea level rises. Violent storms. Heat waves. There is no way to stop global warming. But we can put the brakes on. Scientists believe that if we can cap our emissions such that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 goes no higher than 450 ppm, we can avoid the worst outcomes. The higher we go, the worse the outcomes. The worst outcomes are truly catastrophic.
My family has two hybrids, now. As soon as the technology is available, we are going to convert our cars to plug-ins. We purchase wind energy (90% of our energy, anyway, the maximum allowed here in NM) to heat our home. I have decided to begin bicycling to the grocery store and pharmacy, and to use canvas bags (the plastic ones use petroleum) and buy locally grown produce and meat whenever possible. The experts also recommend unplugging our appliances, when they are not in use—they tell us up to 20% of our energy use is the slow drain of plugged-in, turned-off appliances. Using compact fluorescents in lieu of incandescents not only cuts way down on carbon dioxide emissions, it saves you lots of money.
This all sounds so trivial, but it makes a difference. And it is within your grasp.
Folks, I’m not shitting you. Global warming is the single biggest issue of our time. You don’t have to do everything. Just pick one thing to do differently, to reduce your impact. Find the political will to pressure your representatives to regulate carbon emissions. Find the personal will to make a few small changes in your life. It will make a difference. Act now.
That’s what the numbers are telling us.
</end rant>
_________________
*I insisted, most persuasively, I’m told, that at higher altitudes, two plus two equalled five due to the decrease in gravity. I didn’t believe it but just wanted to torment her. I’ve since learned that two plus two can indeed equal five, for sufficiently high values of two and sufficiently low values of five. Nice to find out that for sufficiently high values of two, I’m not a terrible liar.
Posted in Daily Life, Morgan, Science, Technology | 
19 Comments »
May 1st, 2007 at 7:49 am
I read J.G. Ballard’s THE DROWNED WORLD when I was twenty. It’s clearly time for a re-read.
Thanks for another wake-up alarm, Morgan. Here’s hoping the Naked Apes don’t keep hitting the snooze button.
We’re trying here in Manchaca, too, in our small ways. Most bulbs in the house are now fluorescents, even though I don’t like the light. And one of our two vehicles is a hybrid . . . while my hope/plan is that our NEXT one won’t use petroleum-based fuel at all.
Sadly, though, my brain is composed of 95% pessimism cells. (Which still makes me more optimistic than J.G. Ballard.) I actually think humanity is gonna hit the canvas on this one.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go down swinging.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:53 am
I’m not wild about fluorescents either. But heck — it’s a small price to pay.
I’m guardedly optimistic, myself. I just can’t allow myself to believe we are not smart enough, and committed enough, to avert disaster.
But I did spend the night feeling guilty about this post. I know I’m hitting that one note awfully hard on this blog. Next post, I’ll do something different and maybe even upbeat…heh.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:54 am
We switched over to fluorescents a few years ago in all the sockets that would support them (I got a package of outdoor flood fluorescents, only to find that they wouldn’t fit in the housings. Grumble). We have one car (not a hybrid, but a compact car with decent mileage) and take public transportation when possible. We’re considering putting solar panels on the roof. We recycle and compost and attempt to live with ecological virtue. It doesn’t feel like enough, but we’re trying. I wish I could convey my sense of urgency to my neighbors…
May 1st, 2007 at 11:02 am
Ooooh, solar panels! I want solar panels! Nice, Mad.
Btw, apropos optimism, a recent poll indicates that Americans are beginning to grok the need for change:
“Ninety percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans said immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate. Nineteen percent said it was not necessary to act now, and 1 percent said no steps were needed.”
(Incidentally, this article has a classic case of the misleading headline; in fact, the poll numbers are showing a tectonic shift in Americans’ awareness of global warming and the importance of action.)
May 1st, 2007 at 11:09 pm
This, to me, is one of the greatest things about living in Seattle now. These people really grok climate change.
This being May 1, it was one year ago today that Ed started working at the Seattle office. We’ve purchased gasoline three times in the intervening 12 months, one of those times on our way back from Vancouver — making it very highly taxed Canadian petrol sold by the litre.
Ed’s company provides MetroPass(es) to its employees, and actively discourages driving to work by charging for parking. Ed is not married to a stupid person (usually), and he takes the bus to work.
I specifically chose our apartment, in part, due to the relative ease in walking to everything I need.
I say “relative” only because Seattle ain’t flat. Half a mile on a level plane is a whole lot easier than half a mile up an 8-10 degree grade.
So, very little driving. Recycling is very nearly a religion out here, as is energy efficiency. Another point in favor of our apartment was its Built Smart status from Seattle City Light.
One of the things that boggled Ed and I about living out here was the bi-monthly electric bills. I josh you not, electric bills come once every two months, and then they run between $60-75.
SCL also makes it possible to buy-in on alternate energy sources on a 25, 50 or 100 percent basis. I just bought-in for 25% of our energy usage, which will add $6 to the bimonthly bills.
Taking the carbon calculator, therefore, resulted in an almost ridiculously low number for someone who’s spent her entire adult life in the middle of the country, someone who recently needed a vehicle to accomplish anything other than taking out the trash or checking the mail.
1.85, as opposed to the national average of 7.5. “Much smaller than average.” But I don’t really feel virtuous, so much as fortunate as to be able to live here.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:10 pm
That reads so well, I think I’ll “steal” it for mine one place…
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:45 am
1.85 is impressive! I’m envious! Even with the hybrid I only get 6.55. In part because of how many miles I have to drive just to get where I need to go, and in part because I have to fly some on business.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:00 am
Well, this is a kick in the head — I just hit the carbon calculator for the first time. I have an average electricity bill of around $100/month. Tweaking the percentage of clean resources used, changes me back and forth from a bit over 3 tons to more than 10 tons. Sucks. I have no idea what the correct percentage should be.
Also, the fact that I still drive about 5000 miles a year in a car, to visit Austin, makes a two ton difference.
The calculator seems really oversimplified, too, but I don’t know how it could be set up for people to figure out how much carbon impact there is for the food and other consumables we buy.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:18 am
True. I think they focus only the biggest-hit items — transportation and utilities.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:21 am
Speaking of plug in cars, apparently Lotus is getting serious about it:
http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=4560
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 am
Whoa, very cool, Doug. Apparently the cost is $60-100k. Not exactly in the affordable range, but I expect the price will drop as they master the technology.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
For Rory:
Zapino Electric Motor Scooter
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Yeah. That looks cool. But — if my electricity is generated by plants with a heavy carbon impact, I’m back where I started.
….Actually, I’m gonna end up with a 750cc Honda Shadow or a Virago, or maybe a V-Twin, by the end of the summer, unless I break something else between now and then.
I’m kinda resisting upgrading to a Harley Sportster, since they have, you know, that sound that drives the babes wild.
Surely, switching over to motorcycles would be the responsible thing for us all to do, if we love the planet.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Yeah, coal plants are bad news.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
(But according to my understanding, due to the inefficiencies of internal combustion engines, using electricity from a power plant is still better, regardless…)
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Apparently, the amount of carbon released to atmosphere for an electric vehicle (assuming no alternative generation like wind or photovoltaic or nuke) is ten percent what the vehicle generates burning fossil fuels directly.
But, even to avoid that, try this one.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
Oh, that’s just cute as hell!
I’d be able to mount my twin laser cannons in the front, too. A car that looks like that needs laser cannons.
Basically, though, none of this is ever going to take off until an electic car will do highway speeds, with a range of a couple of hundred miles per charge.
I haven’t been following the technology for a couple of years, but the problem when last I checked was that batteries just didn’t have the energy density for that, and there were on-going problems with fuel cells that were keeping them from being practical. Wonder if any of that has changed?
A really depressing site to visit is:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
which talks about peak oil in great detail. The second page outlines why other energy sources won’t be enough to save us.
Gotta hope for that unforeseen technofix.
May 5th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Morgan, well said.
I’m an optimist, a very concerned optimist. I think that Americans will dazzle the world with their carbon footprint reduction and clean energy development, once we get up some momentum.
Americans are quite competitive, aren’t we? We like to win, to lead. When we get together to raise money for a good cause, we seem to do better with a goal and an idea of how well we are doing. To try to leverage that, I built a carbon calculator/carbon reduction tracker. People go to the site and note how many CFLs they’ve installed, whether or not they are recycling, whether they are washing their clothes in cold water, etc. There are 39 different measureable reductions to choose from. And the tool tells you how much CO2 you have reduced.
[This pseudo ad may be inappropriate for this thread but your post, the topic and your engaged audience caught me eye.]
May 5th, 2007 at 10:25 am
No, it’s very appropriate, Jay. And I agree with you 100%. Thanks for posting. In fact, there is a good article in today’s San Francisco Chronicle about potential mitigation strategies, now out from the IPCC. It defines the problem well and makes clear that these problems are indeed solvable.
Everybody, click on Jay’s name to see what he’s talking about.