Hey Dook posted a question regarding the emission reductions (are you blocked from his questions?), so I looked into it a bit.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
It seems the reductions will be expected from coal fired power stations as opposed to all power stations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/pol...
A quick back of the envelope calculation showed that coal power produces about 65% of CO2 emissions from electricity generation and provides about 45% of the power (sources vary). Most of the rest of the emissions come from gas-fired stations that provide about 25% of the power (the remainder is generated by nuclear, hydro, wind etc so has little emissions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity...
A target of 30% would mean an approx halving of emissions from coal-fired stations and the target is to achieve this in 16 years. If redundant stations were replaced with nuclear or alternatives and carbon capture was implemented in the remaining stations then it’s not a particularly difficult target to reach.
Going for a 45% reduction when only targeting coal would be somewhat harder as this would require coal stations to reduce emissions by 70%.
A target of 15% seems very low, a large part of this could be achieved simply by replacing obsolete stations with more efficient ones or alternatives. It wouldn’t actually be necessary to do much about emissions as they’d drop anyway.
According to the EPA, the electricity sector produces 32% of CO2 emissions in the US. If a 30% reduction were achieved it would represent an overall reduction in US emissions of about 10%.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemis...
The figure of 30% should be a fairly easy target to reach. Since 2007 CO2 emissions from coal power have already come down by 20% and all fossil fuel emissions as a whole are down by about 10%.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail....
Quite why they opted to go with 30% I don’t know. I guess it’s a realistic target that shouldn’t be too hard to achieve.
As I stated in a later question from you that I answered earlier, they pulled it out of one of their body orifices (to paraphrase). Anyone that believes that the number was calculated on what was needed to save the earth is in dire need of immediate psychiatric attention.
Trevor in his brilliant analogies seem to think humans can do a lot to bring temperatures to a halt, but that would entail knowing how to differentiate between "natural masking" of temperature increases that nature already has built into the equation. I'm still trying to figure out who these so-called experts that the IP CC has and how they are picked. It seems that they are hand-picked in order to get a specific analysis. I'm sure it was one of Obama's hand-picked experts who decided on the 30%.
Trevor - " ... What we need to do therefore is to stop the land-based ice from melting and prevent the oceans from warming up. ... "
Perhaps someone suggested both of the latter numbers and someone split the difference. However, I do hope that they have short term goals, other wise power companies will wait for the last minute while doing nothing, forcing the government to abandon these targets, like what happened to the Kyoto Accord in Canada.
Raisin Caine
Because of the recession. It seems odd that someone who thinks that carbon dioxide isn't a problem and who's psychic told him that sea level rise will never exceed 3mm per year would want the recession to continue.
Although you do raise some valid points about Obama. He has managed to stall his decision on Keystone XL until after the midterm elections.
It wont affect a thing It will still Blizzard and have Hurricanes .
Only peoples checkbooks
From scientists, who know what they're talking about. Then they settled on a lower number that wouldn't be as scary to our lazy energy companies.
The number is a political compromise between desired effect and estimated cost.
--
Regards,
John Popelish
This is really just a ton of stupidity on their part. The US CO2 emissions have already leveled off and are starting to go down. Solar power is nearly at a level where it is cost-efficient enough to take off.
My guess is that they were trying to figure out how much the power sector would likely reduce without intereference (lets say 20-25%) and add some percentage points because they know they will only be able to apply a small amount of pressure.
This is another thing I REALLY detest about Obama policies. He comes up with all of these policies and makes the bulk of the change occur after he is president. Like his the ACA. Much of the federal funding for the ACA is going to disappear and the states are going to have to find the funding. But this occurs after Obama leaves office, so who cares right? They tack on $200 billion to the deficit a year and then leave the states with the problem of finding the money. If they tack on to the deficit for just enough time so as not to increase taxes, then the states are left to increase their taxes. So Obama gets to claim that he sloved the problem without increasing taxes, but taxes will increase at the state level AND at some point we are going to have to deal with the deficit.
In a story this morning, the EPA has outlined a climate change regulation as described by Reuters: "The U.S. power sector will need to emit 30 percent less carbon dioxide by 2030 than it did in 2005..." http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/02/us-usa-climatechange-epa-idUSKBN0ED0U020140602
How did they come up with 30%? Why not 15% or 45%?
Secondly, what is the expected result of regulation and how would this result be different for the 15% or 45% number??
