[Greenbuilding] Net Zero Carbon Emissions Economy

[Jason Holstine]

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 UPS¹ing something
across the continent, UPS typically puts in on a railcar, which is much
lower footprint than long-haul trucks, and that¹s a good thing. I don¹t know
why they don¹t promote that.


On 3/9/16 10:44 PM, "Reuben Deumling" <9watts at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
> 
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:39 PM, sanjay jain <sanjayjainuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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!
>> 
>> ~sanjay
>> 
>> Norbert Senf wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:40 AM, conservation architect
>> <elitalking at rockbridge.net> wrote:
>>> 1.66 tons co2 equivalent emissions/person to be fair
>>>  
>>> 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. 
>>>  
>>> 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. 
>>>  
>>> Emissions-Sequestration <= zero 
>>>  
>>> More broadly the formula includes aspects that include the feedbacks such as
>>> diminished reflective ice, to:
>>>  
>>> Heat increasing developments ­ heat reducing developments <= zero
>>>  
>>> 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. 
>>>  
>>> 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.  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.ht>>>
m
>>>  
>>> 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.
>>>  
>>> 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. 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Greenbuilding mailing list
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
>>> 
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioener
>>> gylists.org
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160310/1aca30cc/attachment.html>