Coal needs set to double https://phys.org/news/2022-05-india-environment-coal-citing-…
India needs a billion tonnes of coal annually to meet its current domestic demand. Most of its needs are met by domestic producers, with a record 777 million tonnes mined in the fiscal year to the end of March. The shortfall is imported from countries like Indonesia, Australia and South Africa.
The government says it plans to increase domestic coal production to 1.2 billion tonnes in the next two years to support a post-pandemic economic recovery. Despite a commitment to increase its renewable energy capacity to 175 gigawatts by 2022 and 500 gigawatts by 2030, Coal and Mines Minister Pralhad Joshi said Friday that India’s coal needs are set to double by 2040.
A renewed focus on accelerating coal production risks India missing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s COP26 commitment to meet 50 percent of energy demand through renewable energy by 2030, according to experts. The world’s third-biggest carbon emitter, already home to 1.4 billion people, is projected by the UN to become the planet’s most populous nation by the middle of the decade.
Even cavemen had a carbon footprint once they started to use fire. The key is to greatly reduce the overall CO2 emissions to reach an equilibrium. No one wants to return to the days of the Cro-Magnum but to eliminate the release where you can.
Even cavemen had a carbon footprint once they started to use fire. The key is to greatly reduce the overall CO2 emissions to reach an equilibrium.
But that wouldn’t be an equilibrium until everyone got to zero emissions, and even then there are other forcings such as land use changes. This paper estimates that 40% of the present-day anthropogenic forcing can be attributed to LULCC (land use and land cover change).
Even with a theoretical net zero human emissions there would still be natural CO2 additions to the atmosphere from volcanoes, forest fires started by lightning, and plant respiration activities. The trick is to make the human caused emissions low enough that the number of trees and the amount of ocean plankton could absorb the CO2 in the environment before it raised the air temperature.
Also shellfish and healthy corals sequester carbon as calcium carbonate in their shells.
Why would CO2 concentration still continue to go up when current emissions are reduced by 75%? — This number ignores CO2 absorption.
True. This paper by Stager estimates a temperature rise for hundreds of years whilst CO2 will stay at an elevated level for thousands. www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/what-happens-after…
“The first stage of this process will occur when the rate at which we burn coal, oil, and natural gas levels off and then declines, either because we switch to alternative energy sources soon, or because we run out of affordable fossil fuels later. As a result, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will also eventually peak and then decline.”
An essay that discusses the issue:
If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases right now, would we stop climate change? https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhous…
What would happen to the climate if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today, right now? Would we return to the climate of our elders? The simple answer is no.
I think we can agree that even if all countries reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by, say, 75% the levels of CO2 would still continue to go up and climate forcings would be positive.
This is not necessarily true, depending on stuff like land use etc …
Currently the environment provides a large net CO2 sink, mostly into the ocean. Last time I had a look the environment soaked up about 1/2 of our emissions. If that continues to be the case, reducing our emissions by 75% might well be enough to cause CO2 levels in the air to level off or start declining, at least for a while.