Global power generation from fossil fuels is approx 20TWh of which fossil fuels generate some 67% (41% coal, 21% gas, 5% oil. The remaining 33% is mainly nuclear and hydro). Therefore, of fossil fuel generated power some 67% comes from coal.
Electricity generation produces some 37% of total CO2 emissions, the coal component being responsible for just under 25%. In terms of total emissions this means that the burning of coal as a fuel produces 8.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.
Your second item was petroleum, for the purposes of this answer I’ll include gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel etc. Of all the CO2 emissions worldwide petroleum is responsible for 15.0% or 5.0 billion tonnes per year.
Thirdly was deforestation. Of CO2 emissions this is responsible for 18.3% or 6.1 billion tonnes per year. If we factor in reforestation and afforestation then it drops to 16.3% or 5.5 billion tonnes per year.
We have coal as the largest contributor (8.3Gt) followed by deforestation (6.1Gt) and then petroleum (5.0Gt).
Dispensing with petroleum would be problematic, partly because we’d have to convert all vehicles to run on an alternative fuel but also because there are no viable alternatives for aircraft and shipping to use. Fortunately it’s the smallest of the three contributors so let’s eliminate this one.
Coal is the largest contributor but there is the advantage that electricity can be generated by other means; indeed, the majority of electricity isn’t generated by coal. The adaptation of existing power stations to use other fuels is a comparatively straightforward process and many stations have already been adapted this way. If a ten year time limit were in place then it allows plenty of time to migrate away from coal.
It also allows time to bring on-line new power stations that don’t use fossil fuels at all. Hydro for example has massive untapped potential and countries that have gone down this route, such as Brazil, Canada and Norway, now generate the majority of their electricity from hydro.
The other option would be to stop deforestation. The problem here is that much of the deforestation that occurs is already illegal and as such it would be very difficult to stop. It would be much easier to implement and enforce a policy of not burning coal in power stations.
Preventing deforestation would have many advantages other than slowing down global warming. It’s a major cause of flooding, landslides and soil erosion, if it were stopped thousands of lives would be saved every year. The flooding that’s occurring in Uttarakhand State in India at the moment has been worsened by deforestation and it’s a serious issue in many of the Amazonian countries.
Additionally there would be the preservation of habitats and species and the continued provision of food, fuel and other resources to local communities. Not forgetting that three-quarters of all medicines in the world have plant extracts in them, many of which are only found in the rainforests.
So whilst preserving the forests would probably bring about the greatest overall benefit, it would be difficult to implement. Given the relative ease of moving away from coal, coupled with it being the largest of the three contributors, then this is perhaps the best choice for the scenario you have presented.
As to whether any of the three options would be enough to stop AGW – no. Not by themselves nor if all three were implemented together. Collectively they account for 19.4Gt of CO2 emissions per year, about 58%. Once we add in our other greenhouse gas emissions then they account for 19.4Gt of the total 44.2Gt CO2 equivalence, about 44%.
Reference sources used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jQPOQqlQw7U/Tams4ux3kMI/AAAAAAAAADI/J3SCjxWV6QA/s1600/World-FlowChart.jpg
I believe the most important thing to do, for all reasons in the world, would be to restore biomass and reverse the immense biodiversity loss which happened in the past century(ies).
But that's not easy to do, it's even harder than halting coal or oil consumption. It would mean that basically we should optimise our use of land and agriculture, and limit overpopulation and urban sprawl.
It could be done with modern technology (like vertical farming etc), but I suspect this transition will not happen anytime soon.
Coal is used mostly to produce electricity, these days, and there are many ways to make electricity, But in and of itself, to stop using coal to make electricity would slow global warming down dramatically; people might be talking about 50 or 60 years rather than 15 years without statistically signifcant warming. But oil and natural gas still add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The three "causes" are not equal in importance. Coal is the biggest, so replacing coal would have the biggest effect. Completely replacing it would be ridiculously unrealistic, however, and even completely replacing it would not be enough by itself to "stop" AGW, though it would slow it significantly.
But this whole framing is rather absurd. Like saying how could we best eliminate global terrorism
a) intervene militarily in Afghanistan for 12 years at a cost of many hundreds of billions?
b) intervene militarily in Iraq for 9 years at a cost of many hundreds of billions?
c) lock a few hundred "usual suspects" up in Guantanamo without putting them on trial for 10+years, violating common sense, human rights, and the interests of the US?
d) improve security on airplanes, and in public areas?
d) would clearly have the most bang for the buck, but none of these could realistically be expected to "stop" terrorism altogether or "win" a "war" on it.
Even though I don't believe CO2 is a problem, I would welcome reversing deforestation, with the money spent on climate change research we could have planted a billion trees, also the project of planting mangroves along the Eritrian desert is a worthwhile idea.
The 3 causes are not proven and only opinions . Shutting down the World would cause mass starvation and more famines .
Do the Environmentalist want farmers do go back to the good ole days of using cattle or Horses to plow the fields ?
Chem, where is your evidence that there has been ANY AGW (man-made Global Warming) or any warming whatsoever that is OUTSIDE THE RANGE of normal/natural variability?
Here's the last 35 years. Where is the ABNORMAL or UNUSUAL warming in this graph? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Even Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. So where are you finding it?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/1...
Why has there been no significant warming for more than 14 years with current CO2 levels higher than anytime in thousands of years according to your climate scientists? Why is there a 'pause' in warming?
And being that the largest recent rise in temperature started in 1996 --- why has the 'pause' now persisted LONGER than the small upward trend?
Please answer these questions BEFORE making the ASSUMPTION that there has been any kind of significant warming --- LET ALONE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
-----------------------
kano - You can relax on deforestation, it's not happening either. That's just another big Warmist fairy tale. The world's forests are getting denser according to a study reviewed in this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...
In fact Warmist climate scientist Hans von Storch admits in this recent interview that climatists got it wrong on deforestation too, along with a long list of other 'errors.'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...
-----------------------
What has been the temperature trend on Earth for the past 10 - 15 years?
What has been the CO2 ppm trend on Earth for the past 10-15 years?
In a reasonable sense, there are 3 major causes of AGW: our use of coal, our use of petroleum, and the various land-use changes (deforestation, etc) that we have made in the 20th century. (Our use of natural gas is also a major factor, but I know natural gas causes less warming per unit energy than either of the other fossil fuels) If we could only fix one of the 3--that is, stop all use of coal, stop all use of petroleum, or restore all natural biomass lost since 1800--in the next, say, decade, which would be the easiest to do, considering all the logistical factors (but not the legal force needed to make it happen, we're handwaving that)? Which would cause the least harm and/or do the most good as far as things besides AGW (particulate pollution, endangered species, etc)? And which fix would do the most good about slowing AGW? Would any one of the 3 be enough, by itself, to *stop* AGW?
As usual, reliable sources are always welcome.
I believe the most important thing to do, for all reasons in the world, would be to restore biomass and reverse the immense biodiversity loss which happened in the past century(ies).
But that's not easy to do, it's even harder than halting coal or oil consumption. It would mean that basically we should optimise our use of land and agriculture, and limit overpopulation and urban sprawl.
It could be done with modern technology (like vertical farming etc), but I suspect this transition will not happen anytime soon.
Coal is used mostly to produce electricity, these days, and there are many ways to make electricity, But in and of itself, to stop using coal to make electricity would slow global warming down dramatically; people might be talking about 50 or 60 years rather than 15 years without statistically signifcant warming. But oil and natural gas still add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The three "causes" are not equal in importance. Coal is the biggest, so replacing coal would have the biggest effect. Completely replacing it would be ridiculously unrealistic, however, and even completely replacing it would not be enough by itself to "stop" AGW, though it would slow it significantly.
But this whole framing is rather absurd. Like saying how could we best eliminate global terrorism
a) intervene militarily in Afghanistan for 12 years at a cost of many hundreds of billions?
b) intervene militarily in Iraq for 9 years at a cost of many hundreds of billions?
c) lock a few hundred "usual suspects" up in Guantanamo without putting them on trial for 10+years, violating common sense, human rights, and the interests of the US?
d) improve security on airplanes, and in public areas?
d) would clearly have the most bang for the buck, but none of these could realistically be expected to "stop" terrorism altogether or "win" a "war" on it.
Even though I don't believe CO2 is a problem, I would welcome reversing deforestation, with the money spent on climate change research we could have planted a billion trees, also the project of planting mangroves along the Eritrian desert is a worthwhile idea.
The 3 causes are not proven and only opinions . Shutting down the World would cause mass starvation and more famines .
Do the Environmentalist want farmers do go back to the good ole days of using cattle or Horses to plow the fields ?
Chem, where is your evidence that there has been ANY AGW (man-made Global Warming) or any warming whatsoever that is OUTSIDE THE RANGE of normal/natural variability?
Here's the last 35 years. Where is the ABNORMAL or UNUSUAL warming in this graph? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Even Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. So where are you finding it?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/1...
Why has there been no significant warming for more than 14 years with current CO2 levels higher than anytime in thousands of years according to your climate scientists? Why is there a 'pause' in warming?
And being that the largest recent rise in temperature started in 1996 --- why has the 'pause' now persisted LONGER than the small upward trend?
Please answer these questions BEFORE making the ASSUMPTION that there has been any kind of significant warming --- LET ALONE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
-----------------------
kano - You can relax on deforestation, it's not happening either. That's just another big Warmist fairy tale. The world's forests are getting denser according to a study reviewed in this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...
In fact Warmist climate scientist Hans von Storch admits in this recent interview that climatists got it wrong on deforestation too, along with a long list of other 'errors.'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...
-----------------------
What has been the temperature trend on Earth for the past 10 - 15 years?
What has been the CO2 ppm trend on Earth for the past 10-15 years?
In a reasonable sense, there are 3 major causes of AGW: our use of coal, our use of petroleum, and the various land-use changes (deforestation, etc) that we have made in the 20th century. (Our use of natural gas is also a major factor, but I know natural gas causes less warming per unit energy than either of the other fossil fuels) If we could only fix one of the 3--that is, stop all use of coal, stop all use of petroleum, or restore all natural biomass lost since 1800--in the next, say, decade, which would be the easiest to do, considering all the logistical factors (but not the legal force needed to make it happen, we're handwaving that)? Which would cause the least harm and/or do the most good as far as things besides AGW (particulate pollution, endangered species, etc)? And which fix would do the most good about slowing AGW? Would any one of the 3 be enough, by itself, to *stop* AGW?
As usual, reliable sources are always welcome.
