4

The recent IPCC SR15 Report has garnered a lot of press coverage because it warns that we must dramatically reduce CO2 emissions by the year 2030, less than 12 years away.

Global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions [must] decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range).

I would like to know which of the well-known and scalable emission mitigation strategies are still viable on such a short timeframe. Specifically, I am looking for answers in two categories:

1) Which emission mitigation strategies, if any, are unlikely to produce a net reduction in emissions within the 12 year timeframe? For example, early solar photovoltaic panels had an energy payback as high as 20 years, which would have made them non-viable on a 12 year timeframe. (Modern PV panels have a much faster payback, closer to 2 years.)

2) Which emission mitigation strategies, if any, are likely to cause a net reduction in emissions of greater than 45% within 12 years? In order to hit our target of 45% reduction by 2030 we will need a mix of techniques and technologies with varying payback. Which solutions are able to beat the target in this short timeframe?

  • Keeping in mind that all actions have so far made no change in the increasing rate of per-centage of CO2 in the atmosphere ; Refer Mauna Loa or other atmospheric CO2 measurements. – blacksmith37 Oct 23 '18 at 19:21
2

Almost all of the well-known mitigation tools yield fast benefits.

PV's payback is around a year. Onshore wind around 3 months, offshore wind around 9 months. The payback time on each of these three depends on the weather regime where it's located. Biomass when done well less has a payback of less than a year. Most energy efficiency measures take less than a decade.

Big hydro takes longer, but is worth doing anyway, as part of the larger long-term decarbonisation strategy.

So this really isn't a case of looking for reasons to exclude mitigation tools on the basis of urgency alone: we must cut emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and we must also cut them by 100% by about 2050.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.