Home > AGW, Climate Change, CO2 Emissions, Omniclimate, Policy, Science > (Bastards!) Mass Manslaughter By AGW (CO2) Obsession

(Bastards!) Mass Manslaughter By AGW (CO2) Obsession

The EU policy on CO2 emissions has turned into a mindless, obsessed monster that cares not about climate, people or the planet. And it is getting its hands dirty with the lives of those it refuses to save.

In fact: the EU Commission has just let everybody know that the wholly preventable, daily killing of more than 4,000 people by black carbon (soot) is not a “top priority” and “should not divert attention away from carbon dioxide“.

It gets worse.

The reason for dismissing any attempt at limiting black carbon? It’s because “more research must be carried out to ascertain its impact more accurately“. Impact on what? On global warming. Yes: because, according to Frank Raes, head of the climate change unit at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), black carbon is “‘likely’ to contribute to climate change” but “the regional impacts of black carbon may be even more significant than its global warming effect” (my emphasis). Also, “the existence of both black and white aerosols, with warming and cooling impacts, makes it less straightforward to make a case for political action on black carbon“.

Talk about choosing the wrongest path.

Reduction of black carbon emissions is by far the easiest, clearest, fastest way to solve a lot of issues, in a win-win scenario that would include Himalayan glaciers and the rescuing of little children from certain death via easily-approved legislation:

1.  Black carbon has profound health effects, contributing to around 1.6M deaths every year. According to the WHO, for under-5s it is a bigger killer than malaria.

Even the “EU policymakers speaking in Brussels” on 22 June say as much. According to EurActiv.com, “the health implications of particulate pollution make a compelling case for tackling black carbon, speakers agreed. Like other small particulates, it causes premature death and respiratory disease, they claimed“.

2. Mainstream science agrees: black carbon contributes to warming.

The IPCC AR4 reported the radiative forcing of black carbon as a total of +0.3 W/m2, not far from methane’s. And “given black carbon’s relatively short lifespan, reducing black carbon emissions would reduce warming within weeks“. Why, “tackling black carbon [may] have a beneficial impact on the climate only 5-10 years after its emissions are cut“.

3. Black carbon is also an issue that could be tackled immediately.

Seventy percent of it comes from “Open biomass burning (forest and savanna burning)“, “Residential biofuel burned with traditional technologies” and “Residential coal burned with traditional technologies“. In South-East Asia, “the majority of soot emissions […] are due to biofuel cooking“. There isn’t anything particularly difficult preventing drastic reductions, and in fact “developed nations have reduced their black carbon emissions from fossil fuel sources by a factor of 5 or more since 1950“. Sometimes, all it takes is a new stove, and access to better fuel than dessicated cow dung.

4. By dealing with black carbon, an example of future emission-related interventions could be set.

Policy-wise, the reduction of black carbon emissions is extremely easy: there is no “black carbon skeptic”, no “black carbon is natural” blog, no “alternative consensus on black carbon” international conference. No fossil-fuel-industry lobbyst has ever pushed against limiting black carbon emissions, and anybody and everybody can be easily convinced that there is something wrong in freeing up in the atmosphere notoriously unhealthy particulates.

Black carbon should be the “motherhood and apple pie” of environmental policy, and legislation and aid organization and distribution regarding the reduction in black carbon emissions could be in place in weeks.. Have a look at this video (from here):

=====================

And still…since black carbon may contribute to regional instead of global warming (as if anybody cared about the difference), plus it might or might not have cooling impacts in the form of “white aerosols”, then the cabinet of the EU Climate Action Commissioner simply does not want “the black carbon discussion to distract from the EU’s focus on cutting CO2 emissions“.

In other words: current EU policy is to cut CO2 emissions, rather than to do anything to the climate, or the well-being of anybody on this planet.

The monster of AGW/CO2 obsession is now fully in action.

ps What if the EU “is already dealing with the problem under its air quality legislation“? Well, so much for the global focus of climate action…also, somebody should be made aware of how far black carbon can travel from where it has been emitted…

pps Is any AGWer suggesting that black carbon emissions could be a good thing, regarding their cooling impacts, and who cares about dying children?

ppps Bastards!

Advertisements
  1. Axel T.
    2010/10/21 at 20:57

    some real entrepreneurs are leading the way :
    http://www.esrla.com/pdf/gasifier.pdf

  2. zad carlos
    2010/07/18 at 14:01

    This the best article I have never seen before….I like this post

  3. Jay Alt
    2010/07/06 at 03:13

    Senator Inhopf is an enthusiastic supporter of controling carbon black emissions; somewhere else! To him, it is an easily visible step that requires little or no effort from the U.S. So you argue against one of the “most knowledgable” climate skeptics and policy experts. One whose political stance always aligns with his fossil fuel industry contributors.

    Carbon black is being addressed by some developing nations, often with good results. And it doesn’t represent as serious a threat to CO2 pollution. It has an atmospheric life of only a few weeks. It can be cleaned up relatively easily by adding on pollution control devices. IN contrast, a significant part of CO2 emissions will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Building coal stations now means those CO2 emissions are locked in for 50-60 years – a very unwise and unhealthy investment.

    • 2010/07/06 at 05:24

      Black carbon is no “threat”. It’s a clear and present danger. It kills children today, not in 2050. Maybe that’s the problem…

  4. 2010/06/28 at 16:03

    You appear to be almost wholly unaware of the massive efforts to control soot and other particulates, including all forms of “black carbon,” over the past century and a half, at least.

    It’s nice that you now regard this as a problem. That puts you right in the mainstream of 1920s progressives.

    Your insistence that the focus of world efforts to control greenhouse gases must be stopped to worry about soot is the stretch. Particulates generally contribute to cooling so long as they are aloft. Our successes at controlling exactly this sort of pollution, both from point sources and non-point sources, appears to have contributed to warming. Prior to the 1970s, particulates and aerosols and their cooling effects tended to offset greenhouse gas warming. After the 1970s, massive controls on particulates and aerosols left the greenhouse effects relatively unchecked.

    No one argues for dirty air, especially not those who urge action to control global warming.

    It’s nice of you to join the campaign, even if nearly a century late, and several billions of dollars short, and absent the will to do what is necessary.

    • 2010/06/28 at 23:45

      Ed – I guess you’ve mixed up your response with some other blog.

      Far from being “almost wholly unaware of the massive efforts to control soot and other particulates“, I quote in my blog “developed nations have reduced their black carbon emissions from fossil fuel sources by a factor of 5 or more since 1950“.

      And if I am “right in the mainstream of 1920s progressives“, then I wonder which mainstream people like Bill Gates are following in their fight against malaria, another big health issue that has been more or less solved in the USA and EU, but not everywhere.

      Furthermore, I have nowhere shown any “insistence that the focus of world efforts to control greenhouse gases must be stopped to worry about soot“. In truth, I have said “by dealing with black carbon, an example of future emission-related interventions could be set.” And who in their right mind would think that soot-emission control is alternative to/in competition with CO2-emission control??? Apart from obsessed EU policymakers, that is.

      Please do reply to what I actually write, when you visit this blog.

      Anyway…whatever…what needs to be done is to push the EU away from washing its hands of black carbon-related deaths. And yes, I am doing what I can, in order to achieve that.

      • 2010/06/29 at 01:21

        So, Europe has reduced black carbon emissions by 5 times since 1950, but you . . . well, what was your point? Your accusation that no one cares (the bastards!) and millions will die sorta conflicts with the actual reduction, doesn’t it?

        Did you have a point other than getting a mild profanity into the headline? Now, hearing your explanation, the post makes even less sense than I thought it did.

      • 2010/06/29 at 05:22

        Little makes sense to those that won’t read.

        Their is a huge global health + (regional) climate issue that could and should he tackled at once. Alas, CO2 obsession is getting in the way.

  5. 2010/06/24 at 14:14

    So, you think we should tell everybody in India to stop cooking?

    What in the world do you expect EU to do for a non-point-source pollutant, whose immediate control requires the starvation of a billion people?

    Oh, didn’t think about that?

  6. frank raes
    2010/06/24 at 11:22

    Both in my presentation and in the EurActiv.com reporting the following was emphasized:

    “In addition to climate change, the health implications of particulate pollution make a compelling case for tackling black carbon, speakers agreed. Like other small particulates, it causes premature death and respiratory disease, they claimed.”

    To give your readers a full account of my presentation, I repeat the content of my summary slide below:

    – “Black Carbon” is more difficult to quantify than e.g. Carbon Dioxide.
    – Two types of measurements are needed
    >Mass of Elemental Carbon: useful in PM & health related studies
    >Absorption useful in climate studies
    >There is no one-to-one relationship between the two.
    – There are many reasons to control emissions of “BC”: hence, just do it!
    – “BC” is likely to contribute to global warming.
    >Several new scientific assessments to be expected in 2010 and 2011 !
    – It is important to look at regional climate effects (e.g. Arctic)
    – “BC” is short-lived, hence reducing its emissions will have an immediate effect on climate (i.e. within 5 – 10 years)
    – However “BC” is often emitted together with other cooling air pollutants
    – First assessments show that there is only a minority of sectors that could be used to rapidly reduce global mean temperatures through “BC” reductions
    – Reducing ozone and methane is probably a more attractive solution
    – Reduction of carbon dioxide remains the main tool to stabilize climate in the long term

    • 2010/06/24 at 11:33

      Frank

      Thank you for your quick reply. To be clear, my anger is at a EU climate action team that has just refused to “do it”, as you say, when all they had to do was to put their weight behind a quick campaign for better cooking facilities in South-East Asian impoverished households, for example

    • BenAW
      2010/06/24 at 18:02

      “- Reduction of carbon dioxide remains the main tool to stabilize climate in the long term”

      Whatever your position regarding the influence of CO2 on climate, are actually people alive who believe humanity at present is able to “stabilize climate ” ??

      • 2010/06/24 at 19:10

        Ben AW – it’s a bit of jargon, I suspect, and it means stabilize the human influence on climate

        Policy people have to work within the confines of each policy…

      • BenAW
        2010/06/25 at 09:31

        “Ben AW – it’s a bit of jargon, I suspect, and it means stabilize the human influence on climate”
        I really doubt this, see eg this remark:
        “- First assessments show that there is only a minority of sectors that could be used to rapidly reduce global mean temperatures through “BC” reductions”

        And see the discussions about “allowing the average global temp to rise maximum 1,5 or 2 degr. C.”

        These policymakers seem to believe the climate can be regulated like with a home thermostat. Scary.

      • 2010/06/25 at 09:34

        Of course, most are unaware there’s a whole world, outside :-\

  1. 2010/06/24 at 23:30

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: