Finally, something of official is known in Copenaghen. The USA proposes a cut of 17% of the greenhouse gas by 2020 and give 10 billion of dollars to the developing countries for the technologies. What would be the environmental impact of this data? Minimum. Let’s calculate the temperature reduction if a reduction of 17% of the CO2 only would occur: since the US proposal deal with the 17% of all the greenhouse gases, the temperature reduction will be less than the value that we will obtain for CO2. Let’s calculate the value. The emission of CO2 for 2020, if all the countries would follow the US in the 17% of reduction, would be 48464 millions of metric tons, while in 2006 the value was 58319 (see previous post). Figure 1 shows the emission breakdown and the difference between 2020 end 2006 emissions: the difference is so small that I will not show on the figure.
In the previous post, we have seen that with the hypothesis of of 40% (for rich countries) -30% (for emerging countries) CO2 emission reduction , the emission level would have been the same of 1984. With the scenario of 17% reduction, the value of emission are those of 1998. The concentration of CO2 for that year was 366.50 ppm, accordiong to the Mauna Loa data. Therefore , if we apply the same calculation of the first post(see box below) , we obtain a decrease of temperature in 2020 (w.r.t. 2006) of 0.17 celsius degree. But, since in the US proposal the 17% of emission is related to ALL THE GREENHOUSE GAS, the reduction of the CO2 will be lower than that value, and the temperature decrease will be lower of 0.17 degree. A POOR RESULT!!! This proposal is insufficient and is in contrast with the request of the small island state, wich required an emission of CO2 of 350 ppm by 2020: that request was satisfied with the scenario of 40% reduction of CO2 emission (see previous post). Mr Obama, please: cut the emission of the 40% percentage, and think to the future of your daughters (also).
In the previous post, we have seen that with the hypothesis of of 40% (for rich countries) -30% (for emerging countries) CO2 emission reduction , the emission level would have been the same of 1984. With the scenario of 17% reduction, the value of emission are those of 1998. The concentration of CO2 for that year was 366.50 ppm, accordiong to the Mauna Loa data. Therefore , if we apply the same calculation of the first post(see box below) , we obtain a decrease of temperature in 2020 (w.r.t. 2006) of 0.17 celsius degree. But, since in the US proposal the 17% of emission is related to ALL THE GREENHOUSE GAS, the reduction of the CO2 will be lower than that value, and the temperature decrease will be lower of 0.17 degree. A POOR RESULT!!! This proposal is insufficient and is in contrast with the request of the small island state, wich required an emission of CO2 of 350 ppm by 2020: that request was satisfied with the scenario of 40% reduction of CO2 emission (see previous post). Mr Obama, please: cut the emission of the 40% percentage, and think to the future of your daughters (also).
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento