[Vision2020] US Per Capita Leaking of CO2 into Atmosphere: 19.18 Tons, 2008

[Jay Borden]

The rest of your email that careens left doesn't matter much to me...
since your initial statement uses misleading statements to illicit an
emotional (and alarming) reaction.

If I would have stated that "19 tons of dihydrogen mono-oxide was dumped
into the atmosphere..." and then tried to raise the hackles of the
reader by analogizing "If a corporation dumped 19 tons of oil into the
Snake River, they'd make headlines and be attacked, etc... I would
expect to be dismissed pretty quickly.

Jay



-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Moffett [mailto:starbliss at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 1:36 PM
To: Jay Borden
Cc: Donovan Arnold; Moscow Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] US Per Capita Leaking of CO2 into Atmosphere:
19.18 Tons, 2008

To perhaps nitpick, I'll point out that oil leaks or spills usually
don't involve oil being directly put into the atmosphere, though I
wonder if the blown oil wells during the Kuwait/Iraq/US war were in
some sense polluting the atmosphere directly with oil...

But no, I am not saying that 1 ton of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions
into the atmosphere is just as harmful to the environment, as 1 ton of
oil dumped into a river or ocean coastline, like the Exxon Valdez oil
spill.

But humanity has dumped hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the
atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.

Superb American Institute of Physics essay, "The Carbon Dioxide
Greenhouse Effect" indicates "By recent calculations, the total amount
of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can
readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total
amount in the atmosphere." http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Total fossil fuel emissions of carbon into atmosphere (not including
land use associated emissions) close to 300 billion tons since 1850
(total emissions close to 500 billion tons), according to data in this
article, "Carbon in the Atmosphere and Terrestrial Biosphere in the
21st Century":
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~ymalhi/publications/Malhi%20et%20al%20_%20carb
on%20biosphere%20atmosphere.pdf

Another source indicates the 500 billion ton figure for total human
sourced carbon emissions is roughly correct: "How do we know that
recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-tha
t-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

>From website above:

"Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been
extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred,
shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the
atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have
produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2
to nearly 500 ppm."
--------------------
These rapid and immense emissions are overwhelming natural CO2 sinks
(oceans, plants) thus significantly increasing atmospheric CO2 level,
radiative forcing, and inducing ocean acidification.

The predicted impacts, which are already occuring to some degree, are
global in extent and potentially will result in mass extinction of
species, extremes of drought, flood, fire, catastrophic sea level
rise, disruption of water resources (irrigation) from major rivers,
agricultural failures, starvation, hundreds of millions of climate
change refuges, spread of diseases into different climate zones as
climate changes, and likely warfare from any combination of the above.

No oil leak or spill, even all of them together, has yet to present a
threat to humanity or the biosphere of this magnitude, that I know of.

As is often pointed out by skeptics of the severity of the problem of
anthropogenic climate warming, some areas of the Earth will be more
favorable to agriculture, being warmer and more habitable, the Arctic
ocean will open to shipping and resource development, and if the ice
sheets on Greenland and Antarctica melt, new land will open for human
habitation and development.

Such an argument is frankly quite insane, given that sea level rise
alone will be a massive global disaster, displacing hundreds of
millions of human beings and costing billions upon billions in damage
to critical coastal infrastructure...

I suppose someone in the construction business might see this as boon,
given all the harbors and buildings and homes that would have to be
constructed on higher ground, though predicting the new stable
coastlines might prove difficult till global warming had played itself
out over centuries.

A Brave New World indeed!
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 7/7/11, Jay Borden <jborden at datawedge.com> wrote:

> "If a corporation dumped 19 tons of oil into the Snake River, they'd
> make headlines and be attacked, etc."
>
>
>
> Does this mean that you are taking the stance of "1 ton of CO2 in the
> atmosphere is just as harmful to the environment as 1 ton of oil?"
>
>
>
>
>
> Jay Borden
>
> DataWedge, LLC
>
> p 208-874-4185
>
> f  214-722-1053
>
>
>
> For support questions, please contact:
>
> dwsupport at datawedge.com
>
>
>
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Ted Moffett
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 5:16 PM
> To: Donovan Arnold
> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] US Per Capita Leaking of CO2 into
Atmosphere:
> 19.18 Tons, 2008
>
>
>
> Perhaps you could contract with ExxonMobil or British Petroleum to
patch
> their oil leaks... Duct tape is remarkably multi-purpose...
>
>
>
> I used the word "leaks" to describe human sourced CO2 emissions
> (primarily from fossil fuels, not breathing, of course) because a leak
> is something that is not supposed to happen, as with oil leaks like
the
> one polluting the Yellowstone river...
>
>
>
> Yet most people it appears do not think of the CO2 coming out of their
> tailpipe, or out of a coal fired plant supplying their electricity,
as
> a polluting "leak" into the atmosphere, that induces the same degree
of
> alarm and demands for action to prevent such disasters, as a large oil
> leak into a river or the ocean...
>
>
>
> Yet global ocean acidification from human CO2 emissions, along with
> species compromising climate change, potentially could be more of a
> threat to life in the oceans and on land, than oil pollution from
leaks,
> though these oil spill disasters, such as the Exxon Valdez or the BP
> gulf well explosion, are locally very damaging.
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Donovan Arnold
> <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'll get some duct tape and stop my CO2 leaking right away!
>
>
>
> Donovan Arnold
>
> --- On Sun, 7/3/11, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 	
> 	From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> 	Subject: [Vision2020] US Per Capita Leaking of CO2 into
> Atmosphere: 19.18 Tons, 2008
> 	To: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> 	Cc: "Friends of the Clearwater" <foc at friendsoftheclearwater.org>
> 	Date: Sunday, July 3, 2011, 3:11 PM
>
> 	US per capita leaking of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2008, 19.18
> tons:
> 	
>
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-co
> untrys-share-of-co2.html
> 	
> 	That means you, I, everyone in the US, on average due to our
> economy
> 	and lifestyle, dumping 19 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, with
> annual
> 	amounts close to this figure, year after year.
> 	
> 	If a corporation dumped 19 tons of oil into the Snake River,
> they'd
> 	make headlines and be attacked, etc.
> 	
> 	Yet despite the science indicating CO2 is inducing potentially
> 	catastrophic climate change, which includes CO2 polluting the
> Earth's
> 	oceans via the process of ocean acidification, most people
> accept this
> 	massive dumping into the atmosphere as though it were an open
> sewer,
> 	with a curious lack of urgency.
> 	
> 	The US Supreme Court has ruled the EPA can regulate CO2 as a
> pollutant
> 	( Supreme Court Upholds EPA's Authority to Regulate Carbon
> Dioxide:
> 	WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2011 (ENS)
> 	http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2011/2011-06-20-03.html ),
> yet
> 	opposition to both the EPA's authority to enforce such
> regulations,
> 	and US Congressional legislation to regulate CO2, is formidable:
> 	
> 	Tuesday, June 7, 2011
> 	Media Matters: Opponents of EPA Climate Action Dominate TV News
> 	Airwaves -- only scientist interviewed was Patrick Michaels,
> noted
> 	liar before Congress:
> 	
>
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2011/06/media-matters-oppone
> nts-of-epa-climate.html
> 	------------------------------------------
> 	Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>
>
>