Global carbon dioxide levels and other variations in environment attributed to it

[panopticon]

For those who might have missed it and/or have an interest this thread is about rising CO2 levels and recording peaks and milestones.

The latest report from NOAA (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html) is that the global average passed 400ppm for the month of March.

http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1430928252909/Average-CO2.svg

Scripps Oceanographic Institute has reported on levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for many decades and the Keeling Curve (named after Dr Charles Keeling (https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/04/03/the-history-of-the-keeling-curve/)) illustrates this well.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png

If you want to participate in this thread please try to avoid discussion about anthropogenic global warming (one way or the other) and stay with recorded facts and verified observations (ie CO2 levels, ice sheet/glacial melting, salt concentration in ocean, temperature fluctuations).

Thanks.

-- Pan

[yelik]

One problem I see is who controls the published facts and data?

[Earthlink]

CO, SO, SO2, NO, NO2, HO and H2O2 are conspicuously absent.

Anthropogenic warming? OK, I won't discuss that. How about anthropogenic global mass hypoxia? Is that ok to discuss? And didn't that jesuit priest Bill McKibben say that we need to stay under 350 ppm? What's up with these numbers in the 400's? Should we be concerned over this panopticon, or just sit back and watch these numbers continue to rise, like a slow motion snuff film being playing out in front of us?

[ghostrider]

the Et's said in 2010 the real number was 0.046 percent , 460 ppm ...

¤=[Post Update]=¤

http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_489

[Tesseract]

Very concerning. Looks like Kyoto had no impact other than a very minor and temporary flattening after 1990, although I suppose one could argue things would have been even worse.. It's really staggering that so many politicians don't even think we need to act.

In my work I've noticed that impurities suddenly begin to have a big impact at the 500-1000 ppm level, whereas below that they typically don't present problems. Different area to atmospheric science, but just something I've noticed over and over. Whenever I see the atmospheric CO2 levels I get reminded of this.

[panopticon]

One problem I see is who controls the published facts and data?

Thank you for expressing your opinion.

-- Pan

[panopticon]

CO, SO, SO2, NO, NO2, HO and H2O2 are conspicuously absent.

Anthropogenic warming? OK, I won't discuss that. How about anthropogenic global mass hypoxia? Is that ok to discuss? And didn't that jesuit priest Bill McKibben say that we need to stay under 350 ppm? What's up with these numbers in the 400's? Should we be concerned over this panopticon, or just sit back and watch these numbers continue to rise, like a slow motion snuff film being playing out in front of us?

G'day Earthlink,

Thanks for the response.

You are free to talk about observations that are attributed to an increase in global CO2 levels in this thread.

My reason for not wanting anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to be discussed is not that I disagree that global warming is either occurring or attributed to human influence. I have discussed this a number of times at Avalon and frankly am a bit tired of threads being taken off topic due to it.

Your hypothesis is that oxygen levels are dangerously low and I disagree with your hypothesis.

I have presented at lot of data to explain my position in relation to your belief and your response has been to say all the data I've presented is wrong. This is even if I am referencing the authors of the same data sources you yourself are using.

As a result of this you blocked me. I have no problem with that and wish you well.

This thread is to document 'Global carbon dioxide levels and other variations in environment attributed to it'.

It is not for a discussion on what has led to the increase in CO2 levels as I don't want to get the thread taken off topic.

Thank you for your response and I hope you will be able to contribute to this thread as you do have a skill set that would be useful to its development.

added: BTW, that's why I put the thread in the News & Update : Climate & Environment subforum and not in General Discussion.

Cheers.

-- Pan

[Ioneo]

According to Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace but now has broken with them) the average CO2 level over the last 600 million years has been 2000 ppm. He says this is the optimum for plant growth.

[panopticon]

Very concerning. Looks like Kyoto had no impact other than a very minor and temporary flattening after 1990, although I suppose one could argue things would have been even worse.. It's really staggering that so many politicians don't even think we need to act.

In my work I've noticed that impurities suddenly begin to have a big impact at the 500-1000 ppm level, whereas below that they typically don't present problems. Different area to atmospheric science, but just something I've noticed over and over. Whenever I see the atmospheric CO2 levels I get reminded of this.

G'day Tesseract,

Thanks for the response.

I agree. It is very concerning.

At present projections it is anticipated that the current onset of the destabilisation of the climate system will continue unabated for the foreseeable future (eg severe weather events with wild localised extremes in temperature and precipitation).

Scripps notes that 450 ppm of CO2 (https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2015/02/12/what-does-this-number-mean/) will be reached by 2040 if CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere at the same rate as the last decade. 550 is viewed as being expected by 2100 under current conditions.

It is a very stark future if things continue as they are.

Garnaut noted in his 2008 review (http://www.uq.edu.au/u21/docs/papers/Garnaut%20Climate%20Change%20Review.pdf) that the effect of a stabilisation of CO2 at 450 ppm had a large variation in projected outcomes depending on the part of Australia examined.

Years ago we shifted to where we are in Tassie because of the projections that were around and Garnaut points out that an increase of between 450 ppm and 550 ppm are expected to be fairly mild here.

Unfortunately other parts of Australia will see increased crop failure, though some areas are anticipated to possibly have increased crop yields. This is the problem and where careful explanation should always have been part of the discussion.

Given the natural variability in the Australian climate the projected increase in variability is anticipated to make life even harder on the land (eg longer droughts, increased storm cell intensity and frequency, larger variations in temperature extremes and increased heat waves).

I hope for the best however in a speech given by Garnaut he noted:


The issues are too complex, the vested interests surrounding it too numerous and intense, the relevant timeframes too long. Climate change policy remains a diabolical problem.
Source (https://web.archive.org/web/20121025034101/http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-will-probably-beat-us-garnaut-20080605-2m8l.html)

He is also reported to have said that 'the effects of climate change on the planet could outlive human beings' (source (https://web.archive.org/web/20121025034101/http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-will-probably-beat-us-garnaut-20080605-2m8l.html)).

Yeah, I'm very concerned for the future of the planets biota.

Anyway, :focus:

-- Pan

[panopticon]

According to Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace but now has broken with them) the average CO2 level over the last 600 million years has been 2000 ppm. He says this is the optimum for plant growth.

G'day Ioneo,

Thanks for the response.

I've already commented on Moore in previous threads.


Patrick Moore is a PR man for massive corporations making money through deforestry .

He says what others want him to so he makes a living.

See Monbiot 2010 (here: The Great Ventriloquist (http://www.monbiot.com/2010/12/02/the-great-ventriloquist/)) for some background on him.
...
Patrick Moore's "Speak Truth To Power" award was from the International Conference on Climate Change. The International Conference on Climate Change is a conference organised by the US conservative think tank The Heartland Institute (they are pro-tobacco lobbyists and support Fracking). As they opposed the science of climate change, Moore getting their award means very little other than he's doing a good job for them. He is a PR spin merchant after all.

I hope this was helpful.

-- Pan

[panopticon]

Increasing levels of carbon dioxide has a major impact on the oceans of the world.

This is often either overlooked, or added as an after thought, in discussions about increasing carbon dioxide levels. These discussions usually revolve around the effect on human civilisation of increased climate destabilisation along with, for example, temperature variability and sea level rise.

The increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has changed the chemical makeup of the worlds marine environments over the last century.

An aspect of this process is referred to as ocean acidification.

Below are a couple of short videos explaining what ocean acidification is, how it occurs and what long term effects it will have on the biota of marine environments.

GL7qJYKzcsk
5cqCvcX7buo
I hope these videos are of use to those who might be interested in this discussion and that it is apparent that the problems of global CO2 increase are multifaceted.

Thanks.

-- Pan

[Alan]

According to Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace but now has broken with them) the average CO2 level over the last 600 million years has been 2000 ppm. He says this is the optimum for plant growth.

G'day Ioneo,

Thanks for the response.

I've already commented on Moore in previous threads.


Patrick Moore is a PR man for massive corporations making money through deforestry .

He says what others want him to so he makes a living.

See Monbiot 2010 (here: The Great Ventriloquist (http://www.monbiot.com/2010/12/02/the-great-ventriloquist/)) for some background on him.
...
Patrick Moore's "Speak Truth To Power" award was from the International Conference on Climate Change. The International Conference on Climate Change is a conference organised by the US conservative think tank The Heartland Institute (they are pro-tobacco lobbyists and support Fracking). As they opposed the science of climate change, Moore getting their award means very little other than he's doing a good job for them. He is a PR spin merchant after all.

I hope this was helpful.

-- Pan

Pan, I agree that Moore is a man of questionable character.

However the graph presented was not created by him. Do you believe it to be incorrect?

[Earthlink]

I'm just going to call you Astro from now on panopticon. If your world view does not include Astro-Turfers, then, you should modify your world view to include them, since, they are real and they act and produce all kinds of documents, reports, pdf's and etc. for which they are and continue to be well funded by various fossil industry think tanks around the globe.

In any event, if your world view does NOT take into account the actions and productions from Astro-Turfers, then, I'm sorry to inform you, that your world view could be better represented by eating a bowl of alphabet soup and then analyzing what words come out randomly in the toilet. Seriously. If you approach something under the impression that all are telling the truth, even while conflicting observations are rendered, you will not ever know what is real. You are going to need to put your foot down somewhere, because both can not be true.

To remind you what an Astro-Turfer is:

-bYAQ-ZZtEU


Anyway, when the first species, anywhere, regardless to what depth in an ocean, or at which elevation up the side of a mountain, when the first species anywhere on this planet completely died out and the reason was hypoxia, that was the point where our atmosphere became legally: uninhabitable, and this did occur prior to the year 2000.

And Astro, are you just incapable of basic arithmetic? It is not the power of hydrocarbons which runs ICE's, it is the power of O2 that runs ICE's. How much of this O2 do you think these ICE's NEED every year? Every month? Every day?

You are a fool to discuss the atmosphere in this way, by simply discussing the presence of one of the gasses in it. I don't see the scientific merit of this thread, nor an enlightening purpose of a discussion with such self imposed limitations.

Enlighten me please. What function does this thread serve?

[panopticon]

Pan, I agree that Moore is a man of questionable character.

However the graph presented was not created by him. Do you believe it to be incorrect?

G'day Alan,

The source of the graph (as far as I'm aware) is Monte Hieb's Geocraft.com website (Ioneo's version appears to be Hieb's version from 2004 (https://web.archive.org/web/20050224203855/http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif) which doesn't include the grey area for Berner's margin of area):
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Latest version:

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

It sources data from Berner's 2001 revised GEOCARB model (Hieb stores a copy here (http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf)) and Scotese's climate historical data (http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm).

There have been a few analysis of various presentations similar to this format (see Joanne Nova's here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/nova_past_climate1.gif)) which boil down to it being a simplified representation of available data used as a tool to confuse/win a debate/discussion.

There have been a number of studies that show Hieb's illustration of Bermer's figures over estimates the CO2 ppm (note the 'estimate of uncertainty' greyed area which is the error margin for the data and that some earlier graphs didn't include this...).

Where my problem with it lies is in its simplification of a complex data set to a few components that the author wishes to convey to further their point.

The intent of the author of this graph is to say: "Look carbon dioxide was so much higher for millions of years and temperature didn't run away! Indeed there was an ice age when CO2 levels were much higher than today! The warmists are idiots!"

What is neglected is the solar, volcanic/tectonic, Milankovitch, etc components in relation to CO2 levels and temperature/glacial cover. Also the limitations of Scotese's data sets (which is almost a binary 'Hot' & 'Cold') being based on the Glacial & Greenhouse Earth dichotomy (which is now viewed as simplistic).

Anyway, all that extra data is ignored because it confuses the obvious point the author seeks to make between CO2 and temperature.

As Berner notes (in the paper used for the graph):


This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect. (pg 201).
Source: Berner, R. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time (http://www.ajsonline.org/content/301/2/182.short), American Journal of Science, Vol 301, pp. 182–204

To answer the question as to whether I view the graph is accurate.

It represents the data it seeks to display accurately. The data is being represented in such a way as to obfuscate the limitations of the underlying data and construct a graph supporting the creators hypothesis, which is not relevant to whether the graph itself is accurate...

So yes, I guess it could be said to be accurate. :jester:

-- Pan

[panopticon]

I'm just going to call you Astro from now on panopticon. If your world view does not include Astro-Turfers, then, you should modify your world view to include them, since, they are real and they act and produce all kinds of documents, reports, pdf's and etc. for which they are and continue to be well funded by various fossil industry think tanks around the globe.

In any event, if your world view does NOT take into account the actions and productions from Astro-Turfers, then, I'm sorry to inform you, that your world view could be better represented by eating a bowl of alphabet soup and then analyzing what words come out randomly in the toilet. Seriously. If you approach something under the impression that all are telling the truth, even while conflicting observations are rendered, you will not ever know what is real. You are going to need to put your foot down somewhere, because both can not be true.

To remind you what an Astro-Turfer is:

-bYAQ-ZZtEU


Anyway, when the first species, anywhere, regardless to what depth in an ocean, or at which elevation up the side of a mountain, when the first species anywhere on this planet completely died out and the reason was hypoxia, that was the point where our atmosphere became legally: uninhabitable, and this did occur prior to the year 2000.

And Astro, are you just incapable of basic arithmetic? It is not the power of hydrocarbons which runs ICE's, it is the power of O2 that runs ICE's. How much of this O2 do you think these ICE's NEED every year? Every month? Every day?

You are a fool to discuss the atmosphere in this way, by simply discussing the presence of one of the gasses in it. I don't see the scientific merit of this thread, nor an enlightening purpose of a discussion with such self imposed limitations.

Enlighten me please. What function does this thread serve?

G'day Earthlink,

Thanks for the response.

I look forward to your contributions to this thread,

-- Pan

[araucaria]

It is only to be expected that CO2 levels would rise with human population: we now have over 14 billion lungs emitting the stuff. One of the biggest other manmade causes is concrete: not only because concrete jungles replace the forestland that could soak up CO2, but also because the manufacture of cement is done by removing CO2 from limestone by applying heat, itself generated by CO2-producing processes. I believe it takes 30,000 years for all the CO2 to leach back into the concrete. In other words, we may be addicted to oil, but we are also addicted to concrete. Deserts in their effects are simply vast expanses of natural concrete, i.e. sand and gravel with no manmade cement added.

Regarding climate, there is the assumption that a given status quo ante was ever ideal: in terms of what, one may ask, could any global climate be ideal for everyone? Less than ideal usually means that my little routine in my back yard is no longer applicable.

Treating a fever with aspirin removes the fever as symptom, but not the cause of the fever. Carbon tax and other such measures work like aspirin. However, it could be that the fever is not the symptom of something, but actually the spontaneous treatment of an illness that only needs to be kept within certain bounds while nature does its work, maybe with the help of a doctor.

Climate change is not a global issue with global effects; it is a local issue everywhere in the world with local effects in all parts of the world – not the same thing at all. If local communities were to micromanage their microclimates by applying well-established ecological protocols, then positive global climate change would follow on automatically. This would be proactive climate change being fostered deliberately from a place of knowledge, as opposed to the current crisis, where we see negative climate change being suffered passively from a place of ignorance – some would say from a place of suppressed knowledge: it doesn’t really matter, because either way people need to smarten up. Unwanted climate engineering is a fact of life, and we need to adopt a conservative approach working on the basis that any footprint of whatever kind will be less harmful the smaller it is.

When we say we create our reality, this includes the weather. Everything being created by consciousness, and that consciousness on earth being currently mostly human, our climate is being created both indirectly through psychic energy and its pale imitation, technology, and directly through the world’s gardeners and farmers nurturing the land by helping along the natural processes. This is our direct handle on climate change.

[Earthlink]

Here's a visual. This cube, done at some American school, so, it is a measurement with the unit of measure "feet" and it represents one ton of exhaust fumes, (all produced oxides included) which is 27 feet cubed. Automobiles average 500 cfm (cubic feet per minute) of air to go through themselves while running, and, there were 1 billion registered and plated passenger vehicles on Earth in the year 2010.

I hope no one here is going to suggest that the exhaust pipe from an automobile is something that we need not fear or avoid being too close to, for, it should be feared as being deadly, for, it is, and many have perished already by making the mistake of simply being either too close to one, or too close to one in a confined space: both are recurring occurrences.

And of these exhaust fumes, which contain also CO2, roughly 1/8th of all exhaust fumes are CO2, we can do these simple calculations:

500 x 1,000,000,000 = 500,000,000,000 and if we divide this 500 billion by 27 we get a number that will round to 18.5 billion of these 27 foot cubes being produced every minute. The circumference of the Earth is roughly 25,000 miles, so, to convert that to feet it becomes 128 million feet, or, 4.74 million of these 27 foot cubes, were they end to end. With 18.5 billion of these cubes of exhaust fumes being produced every minute, the 4.74 million spaces required to fit them is filled 3903 times per minute.

Imagine this cube here in the picture going around the world, at the equator, 234,000 times per hour, and that it is filled completely with CO2 and several other oxides, all of which you can not use. And, as it goes, it uses the O2 in front of itself, transforming all that O2 into oxides in the process, rendering that not only useless to you, but in fact deadly poisons to you.

Imagine.

No matter how I slice this, 1 billion cars at 500 cubic feet per minute each remains 500 billion cfm. Now I know that not all of the registered and plated passenger vehicles are being used 24 hours per day, however I have also left out all of the other internal combustion engines from this calculation, and many of these others are not only bigger ICE's, they are way bigger. Almost all of the many millions of vehicle types we have that use diesel fuel are in fact way bigger.

In any event, thanks for being patient here. I have no desire to discuss anthropomorphic warming here, however I can not ignore the anthropomorphic hypoxia empire. For me this has evolved over they years. 20 something years ago I was calling it Empire of the Sun, or, the United Kingdom of Oil. (they profess that the energy in their fuels are derived from the Sun, which is not true, since, a gasoline motor on the moon will just sit there and never function) and under this empirical banner, the United Kingdom of Oil there were what I called the three b!tches, those colonies I referred to as The United States of British Petroleum, Petro Canada and Gas Down Under.

The virtually sole culture of all these english language dominated cultures is that of the car and truck. The thrust of their advanced technologies and what their engineers engineer and what their scientists science. The mono-culture of "unmatched in class fuel efficiency" and "engineered for todays challenges" and "there's tuff and then there's ram tough"

And I don't even own a TV, this is just what leaks through radio's and the odd TV I do see in a bistro watching some hockey, and it is imho very mono-cultured indeed.

[Earthlink]

I made a mistake above, and am correcting it now.

500 cfm is 500 billion cfm for 1 billion cars, that is correct, but 27 foot cubed is not 27 it is 729 cubic feet inside it, so, 500 billion divided by 729 is 686 million of these cubes per minute, which will fill the 4.74 million 27 foot spaces along the equator 145 times per minute or 8,700 times per hour, not 234,000 times per hour. I did this calc many years ago, and it looked high.

Also, I did do another calc. years ago as to how many times now all of the air in the world has passed through an internal combustion engine, and those results, though I don't remember them exactly, also show a future of not but hypoxia for all.

I'm sorry but there can be no other outcome to this. It is physically impossible for it to not be otherwise, unless some sort of oxygen enrichment were done to replace what is being used at this insatiable rate, this is a dead end road we all walk today. For too many species to mention, it is already too late, and as I mentioned above, our atmosphere has already become legally uninhabitable prior to the year 2000.

[panopticon]

CO2 increase is a disaster for the Earths oceans.

I'm not one to point at something and say this is something we should panic about.

I am usually the calm voice of reason.

In this instance however there just isn't enough being said about the dangers posed by ocean acidification from increasing CO2 levels (no matter their cause).

The earliest symptoms of increased ocean acidification are already being reported:

Zca_uqQ4rJI
The increased acidity of ocean chemistry projected for 2100 has been shown to dissolve sea creatures shells (image below depicts a 45 day period).

https://ocean.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/overview_main_688x475/public/photos/PMEL_Feely_dissolving-shells_main_1.jpg

Thank you to Araucaria for mentioning cement/concrete production and its contribution to CO2 increase as well as Earthlink for sharing his quick calculations on vehicle and stationary engine fumes.

Just a quick reminder that the thread is about the effects of CO2 increases not the causes (these are already well documented in threads in the General Discussion area and elsewhere).

I'm busy today but I thought I'd share a few videos on ocean acidification from the people most concerned about it effects on our oceans.

9EaLRcVdTbM
m-1fcNnJzaY
I hope this has been useful to someone.

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

Unlike most people in the world today, I can tell you anything you'd possibly want to know about the fossil industrial complex. It's complex, yet simple, and was, at least once, an idea before it was anything material. Just as an example, remember that place, once on the map, known as Siam? Well, under the guise of "better dead than red" and "commies will destroy you and your way of life" we attacked that region, and then renamed it Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. "Great efforts" were made with invasion forces that marched from the sea great distances inland, and then held a piece of earth there for a few months, just to, in the end, pack up and abandon that piece of earth and go elsewhere in the region and do it again from another launch point.

What was the purpose of this? And what of all those self imposed rules of engagement that hampered the invasion forces in the first place?

Well, it's simple: the US invasion forces are completely dependent on fossil fuels. All of their jeeps, their helicopters, their tanks: everything they had: was all useless without gasoline and diesel fuels. The US military remains today the single largest consumer of these liquid fuels, and everywhere they go a pipeline to keep them supplied with these MUST follow them. Then, officials from "our side" negotiate the distribution of these fuels once "we" pull out with any savvy local businessman type who we didn't kill getting there, and the deal is complete. Repeat this in countries around the world, and voila: the fossil industrial complex! Installed free of charge to those who operate it!

Whatever, I can't prove it, yet I've little doubt that I was the mastermind behind much of or all of this, and I do feel the need now to correct what has turned out to be a catastrophic mistake. It is either that or I'm just keenly aware of everything and can not be lied to.

And do you know what else? I wish we had had the internet before WW1, I really do. So much could have been avoided, and so much more could have been saved.

Today, these days, while "we" manufacture 800,000 gasoline or diesel passenger vehicles per month, and climbing, you're not going to be able to do do anything with the levels of any of the oxides in the atmosphere that does not involve turning on giant compressors, and then applying whichever method is the most productive at returning those oxides to O2 and the various elements that it has bonded with.

[Noel]

Thank you tall all the posters bringing information for our consideration and they all relevant to the problem, I watched a video from the Keish foundation where they have a setup that takes CO2 out of the air and stores it as a liquid. which is a possibility to help; but where I live the farmers are bulldozing all the bush and draining all the water off the land and creating a desert with all there chemicals and sprays., the lumber industry is clear-cutting the trees Big enough to harvest and killing much of the environment for other plants that also process CO2 in to oxygen. Plants should thrive in a CO2 rich environment but when you remove the plants your problem multiplies. and to top it off these factory farms produce GMO food that make us sick. our perception of making a living has to change because making a living is killing us.

[kfm27917]

Time to rock the boat and transform shipping
Jonathan Gornall

Such is the density of international shipping represented as tiny symbols on global maritime tracking websites that the vast fleet continuously circling the globe appears as a massive, previously undiscovered landmass. The illusion is fitting. As the World Economic Forum put it recently, “If shipping were a country, it would be the world’s sixth-biggest greenhouse-gas emitter.”

Now a report from Seas at Risk, a collaboration of environmental non-governmental organizations, has further highlighted the threat posed by the industry – and proposed a simple solution. Ships, it says, should simply slow down. Reducing average speeds by 20% would cut emissions by up to 34%.

The problem with this go-slow quick fix is that, even if an industry competing to meet the demands of the global economy could be persuaded to adopt it, any gains would be quickly swamped by the growth in trade.

Each one of us has a vested interest in at least one of those ships at sea, carrying oil, cars, toys, clothes or any of the desirable objects we buy from Amazon without a thought for how it will cross the world to our door.

Few parts of the world are more dependent upon this lifeline than the Arabian Peninsula. Zoom in on the region on any tracking site and the scale of the armada sailing to and from the great container ports of Jeddah, Fujairah and Dubai becomes graphically apparent.

The list of the world’s top 20 container ports reveals not only the origin of the stuff we buy but also where it’s bound. East and Southeast Asia account for nine of the 10 busiest container ports in the world. China, the world’s factory, is alone the source of a quarter of all sea traffic. The only port in the top 10 not in China, Singapore or South Korea is Dubai, a regional container hub busier than any in Europe or the US.

The Middle East is doing more than its share to keep the propellers of international trade churning, contributing substantially to the threat posed by shipping to climate change and adding to the environmental burden already attributable to the region’s growing demand for electricity and desalinated water.

Individuals can restrict water use, reduce consumption of electricity, and use public transport. But in countries in which more than 95% of all products arrive by sea, there is little we can do personally to reduce the growing environmental impact of shipping

Individuals can restrict water use, reduce consumption of electricity, and use public transport. But in countries in which more than 95% of all products arrive by sea, there is little we can do personally to reduce the growing environmental impact of shipping.

According to intergovernmental think-tank the International Transport Forum, in 2012 maritime transport emitted 938 metric tons of carbon dioxide – 2.6% of total global emissions. But by 2050 emissions will have increased by as much as 250% “if no drastic action is taken.”

The world’s ever-growing hunger for “stuff” is reflected in the growth of maritime trade. In 1970 just 2,605 million metric tons were shipped in containers, bulk carriers and tankers carrying oil, gas and chemicals. By 2018 this had more than quadrupled to 11,005 tons.

Unpicking this grand total is revealing. Between 1970 and 2018 tanker traffic increased by 121% from 1,440 to 3,194 million metric tons. If that sounds impressive, compare it with the 541% increase in dry cargo, chiefly containers, from 717 to 4,601 million tons.

In other words, consumerism is outstripping even our insatiable hunger for fossil fuels. Of course, international trade that leverages each country’s comparative advantage is an economic virtue. The question is how to mitigate the cost of emissions.

The shipping industry is making some attempt to do that. In 2018, the first carbon-dioxide targets for the sector were adopted by the International Maritime Organization, which set the goal of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by at least 50% by 2050 compared with the level in 2008.

This is a tall order. At an IMO sustainability conference in Jeddah this month, John Calleya, the organization’s lead expert on pollution, made clear that reducing speeds and other operational tinkering wasn’t enough. To reduce emissions substantially, “industry stakeholders have to start looking at alternative fuels.”

The 50% target was a compromise reached with oil-producing nations, including the US, Saudi Arabia and Brazil, which objected to an initial proposal to reduce emissions by more than 70%.

One change the IMO has already made is to cap emissions of sulfur oxide, a product of burning heavy fuel oil that is bad for human health and causes acidification of the oceans. The regulation, which comes into force from January 1, means ships will have to use a different quality of oil.

According to energy analysts S&P Global Platts, Saudi Arabia will benefit in the short term from the switch to the light, sweet crude that will be in demand. But, it says, “emissions regulation of any kind tends to accelerate the shift away from the use of oil over the longer term – a move that is not in Saudi Arabia’s immediate interests.”

If the great oil producers hesitate too long before embracing development of alternatives, the oil that transformed Arabian fortunes could yet turn from a blessing to a curse in the brave new environmentally aware world.

The International Transport Forum is proposing blue-sky initiatives to green the shipping industry. In addition to a reduction in ship speeds, it is calling for the urgent development of alternative fuels, such as ammonia and hydrogen, and renewable energy, including wind assistance and electric propulsion.

Slowing down ships, in other words, is just part of the answer. But in shipping, as in every other part of the energy mosaic, speeding up the response of the world’s oil producers to the crisis that threatens us all is the greatest challenge in the battle to halt climate change.

This article was provided by Syndication Bureau, which holds copyright.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/11/opinion/time-to-rock-the-boat-and-transform-shipping/