Slowing Climate Change

I am sorry to all as it seems I have misread the above graph, putting BC in the place of OC which you can see above the highest measured cause of CO2-equivelant emissions and NOT BC which is higher than CO2 but not the highest by some distance. Original article is below...

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

The World's Intention is Obvious

Leonardo DiCaprio's "Climate change is real and it's happening right now"

John Kerry's "Climate change, if unchecked, is an urgent threat to health, food supplies, biodiversity, and livelihoods across the globe."

Sir Ronald Cohen's “In its simplest terms, impact is the measure of an action’s benefit to people and the planet. It goes beyond minimizing harmful outcomes to actively creating good ones by creating positive impact. It has social and environmental dimensions.”

Add to that: 195 countries signed an agreement to lower annual CO2 emissions at COP21 and have taken that further at COP28.

Then include the hundreds of websites and hundreds of thousands of articles and posts speaking of how badly we need to reduce CO2 to stop climate change before the 1.5 degree increase and that resulting nightmare.

Are They Correct?

While reducing CO2 seems to be a good thing, and I am sure it is being done with good intentions, but is it scientifically effective?

First, a bit of a definition for you from "Indicators of Climate Change in California (2022)": (GWP = Global Warming Potential)

p7, para 1: "...CO2 has the lowest GWP of all GHGs reported in the statewide inventory on a per unit of mass basis. Non-CO2 emissions are converted to CO2 equivalents (CO2e) using GWP. GWP is a measure of the extent to which a particular GHG can alter the heat balance of the earth relative to carbon dioxide over a specified timeframe. For example, the GWP of SF6 is 22,800, meaning that one gram of SF6 has the same warming effect as 22,800 grams of CO2."

For a bit of clarity, view the image above...

In terms of creating an effect, reducing CO2 appears similar to chasing an elephant with a butterfly net.

What Should Be Done?

If one wants to make a change to any problem, it seems logical to attack the problem with the most effective tool that can be found -- the biggest 'bang for the buck' so to speak -- and CO2 reduction does NOT appear to be that tool in my eyes.

Unless I am looking at it wrong, black carbon or methane reductions appear to be far, far more effective in 'climate change' reductions than CO2 in the studies I have viewed, and black carbon reductions would go far in creating Better Air Quality for all.

And no, I don't have nightmares about 'cow farts'.

FYI: Black carbon is very, very inexpensive to tackle.

More FYI: Further studies on CO2 reduction effectiveness on 'climate change':

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-weighting-of-the-different-emissions-from-2008-with-BC-and-OC-data-from-2005-using_fig3_258785572

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-benefit-cost-analysis/article/an-assessment-of-the-climate-damage-costs-of-european-shortlived-climate-forcers/4F72420CCEBAD9F56243C1069EC26047

#investing #alternativeenergy #energy #oilgas #engineparts #diesel #dieselpower #dieselperformance #dieselengine #dieselnation #savegas #gasprices #alternativeenergy #energy #oilgas #environment #climatechange #netzero #climate #climateaction #climatecrisis #oilindustry #oilandgas #environmental #co2 #carbonfootprint #diesel #pollutioncontrol #carbonreduction #csr #transportation #decarbonization #biodiversity #fleet #mobility