<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Greenbuilding] Net Zero Carbon Emissions Economy</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
Rail is primarily industrial, agriculture and raw commodities, all of which are quite heavy and disperse deeply into the economy, thus theoretically representing every person. On the flip side, if you are UPS’ing something across the continent, UPS typically puts in on a railcar, which is much lower footprint than long-haul trucks, and that’s a good thing. I don’t know why they don’t promote that.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 3/9/16 10:44 PM, "Reuben Deumling" <<a href="9watts@gmail.com">9watts@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Export? We've started exporting all kinds of crap lately: garbage, various fossil fuels. All of those weigh a lot. Maybe that is what the 50 tonnes per person includes?<BR>
<BR>
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:39 PM, sanjay jain <<a href="sanjayjainuk@yahoo.co.uk">sanjayjainuk@yahoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT FACE="Arial">Agreed on airlines tickets. A recent TV ad caught my attention. Freight rail claims to ship around 50 tonnes per person per year in the US. There's no way my consumption requires that much train transport! And that's just rail, what about trucks and air!<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#888888"><FONT FACE="Helvetica Neue Light"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>~sanjay<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
Norbert Senf wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Helvetica Neue Light"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><FONT FACE="Helvetica Neue"><BR>
A number of years ago I saw a statistic from the CIA that the total world petroleum production divided by the world population is equal to something like 2 litres per person day. Since most of us G-20 inhabitants use much more than 2 litres per day, a lot of people are obviously using less. Sobering thought, when shopping for deals on airline tickets......................N<BR>
<BR>
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:40 AM, conservation architect <<a href="elitalking@rockbridge.net">elitalking@rockbridge.net</a>> wrote:<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'><B>1.66 tons co2 equivalent emissions/person to be fair<BR>
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'>An important concept emerged in the COP21 (Climate Change) conference in Paris last December. 195 countries articulated a need to achieve a net zero carbon emissions economy. This requires us to meet our economic needs in a way that does not increase carbon concentration. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'>This brings up the question of what is our maximum average emissions to achieve this. Given the limits of the atmosphere to absorb carbon safely, this average represents what would be fair for each of us to consume globally. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18pt'><B>Emissions-Sequestration <= zero</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18pt'>More broadly the formula includes aspects that include the feedbacks such as diminished reflective ice, to:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18pt'><B>Heat increasing developments – heat reducing developments <= zero<BR>
</B></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'>The following is based on my analysis and not a conclusion read from a paper by a real scientist. Clarifications, corrections or additions are welcome. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'>The graphic below is from IPCC report regarding emissions from fossil fuel and land use (human caused), vegetation & land (natural) and ocean (natural). I use the term natural loosely, because the sequestration rates for vegetation, land and ocean are likely higher because of the high concentration of carbon created by anthropogenic (human caused) burning of fossil fuels and land use (deforestation). Since Ocean sequestration over what they emit causes acidification, we really need to balance our individual emissions with vegetation and land. These figures do not include the sequestration from some undetermined human method. So far, bio char technology is the only method I see on the horizon that does not have huge risk. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18pt'><a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm">https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm</a><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18pt'>Vegetation and Land has net sequestration (439-450) 11gigatons/world population 7.3 billion people=1.66 tons co2 emissions/person to achieve net zero carbon emissions.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18pt'>Therefore, if the world achieved an average of 1.66 tons of co2 emissions equivalent, we would not longer be adding GHG to the atmosphere. I think it would be useful to recognize the level of performance needed to become harmless to the climate. Beacause of the delay in achieving this standard, we really need to be net negative. However, conceptually I think this is a useful concept to understand. <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Helvetica Neue"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Greenbuilding mailing list<BR>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<BR>
<a href="Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><BR>
<BR>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<BR>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Helvetica Neue"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12pt'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>