Global Warming Feedreader » global-warming-awareness-2007

global-warming-awareness-2007

Did I Win ?

Posted: May 1st, 2007, 3:41pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: championship world SEO [edit]

Did I win the Citroen C2 ?

Did I win the travel ?

Did I win the plasma ?

Who knows ?
Did I Win ?

Posted: May 1st, 2007, 2:41pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: championship world SEO [edit]

Did I win the Citroen C2 ?

Did I win the travel ?

Did I win the plasma ?

Who knows ?
How much gas for purpose of greenhouse in our plate?

Posted: April 30th, 2007, 6:24pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: Warming global [edit]
Last Day !!! Would the fact of eating generate gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007? Thus let us go ..... And yet, the fact of eating weighs very heavy, in France, in the gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007. We owe that with the fact that agriculture is responsible for the main part of the emissions for gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 other than CO2: nitrogen methane and protoxide essentially.

But if we want to count in an exhaustive way what is necessary to our food, he is necessary to look in a way a little broader than the only direct emissions of agriculture. Indeed:

all agriculture, except for the surfaces cultivated in bio, consumes manures and pesticides of synthesis, which should be produced, and that requires of energy fosile, therefore generates CO2 emissions (manures of synthesis are produced starting from natural gas: clean year seuns, we eat gas and oil!).

If we reason with the hectare, manures of synthesis represent the main part of the emissions upstream, the pesticides being much more marginal for the gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007. In addition the intermediate chemical reactions of the production of manures generate also N2O. Of course, the emissions related to the manufacture of these products are not counted in the station ?agriculture?, but in the station ?industry?, and in more we do not produce, in France, that part of manures of synthesis which we use, with the result that the corresponding emissions will be counted in the national total of another country (such an amount of worse for them!).

the expenditure devoted to the purchase of ?rough? products, for example of vegetables or the fresh fruits in bulk, or the fresh meat, accounts for nothing any more but 20% of the whole of than we devote to the food (on average). The remainder of our expenditure is devoted to productions of the food industry: pastes, preserves, frozen, flat prepared, biscuits and confectioneries, drinks, etc But these industries consume energy on line, and thus emit gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 which ?will be included? in the products that will buy to us then: in France, 15% of the consumption of energy of industry are the fact of agroalimentary industries.

then these products are generally packed. It is that the manufacture of packing conomme a significant fraction of the ?basic? materials which we produce (steel, aluminium, plastics, etc). All confused uses, this production of basic materials is responsible for 70% to 80% of the emissions of industry, with thus part of this unit which will be found in what we buy with the supermarket.

Distribution by use of materials basic (steel, aluminium, cement and assimilated, plastic, glass) in Europe in 2001. The packing, which does not certainly concern that foodstuffs, represents a quarter of the emissions related to the production of ?basic materials?: almost as much as building materials!

raw data: Eurostat; APME

let us continue our inventory: a significant part of the road transport of goods relates to the foodstuffs,

Leaves the foodstuffs and manures in the road transport goods to France in 2001 (it is about the proportion of the tonnes.km).

Source: Ministry for transport

As one can see it on the graph above, a third of the trucks which make us so much pester on the roads transports finished or intermediate products of the agricultural activity. They can be alive animals, fodder, milks, of frozen, etc Incidemment, it is quite obvious that with each time we buy Spanish oranges or grapes produced to 500 km of the place of purchase, we buy at the same time the transport which goes with, we can feel sorry for us then with difficulty! The graph above does not take account of the emissions related to air transport or maritime, for which I do not have data,

finally the purchase of these processed products is often carried out in great surfaces (whereas the markets sell fresh products mainly), which generates additional power consumptions:

one needs electricity to preserve frozen, especially in display units open on outside and of the customers who do not want to walk in coat in the store!

it is necessary to heat the store the winter and to air-condition it the summer: the energy of heating and air-conditioning of the stores represents, in France, between 1,5 and 2 million tons are equivalent carbon (electricity included, but that Ci does not lead to large emissions since in France almost all is made with nuclear power and hydroelectricity), i.e. between 1 and 2% of the national emissions.

great surfaces, which absorb 80% of the retail trade of foodstuffs (approximately) are often located in periphery of city, therefore we let us go there by car (these emissions there are not counted here).

and for the house, it is necessary to continue to spend of energy: refrigeration and congelation, cooking, and even the electric grater of carrots! Electric consumption related to the food (refrigerators, freezers, lava-vaiselle, cooking, without counting the small household appliances) accounts for 22% of domestic kWh,

then our packing finishes with the dustbin, and there still we have gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 for the treatment of end of lifetime (even in the event of recycling).

finally 25% of the weight of what us tokens consists of food waste, and when they go in discharge this waste lead to methane emissions, probably not negligible in the emissions of waste taken as a whole.
How much gas for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 made Ca, any Ca?

If we now try to make a total of all that precedes, that brings us to the table which follows, still perfectible, but which gives an idea of the stations:

It is about a careful personal estimate, because I am unable to know the share of displacements in the car which corresponds to the food races. The cars emit 20 million tons on the whole are equivalent carbon, and quantifies it inffiqué supposes that 5% correspond to the food races. Manufacture of the trucks and refining of the gas oil

The emissions gloables of the sector of waste are about 4 million tons are equivalent carbon, and thus the figure selected supposes that 25% come from the incineration of plastic packing or the fermentation of food waste. Methane emissions of food waste total of the emissions attached to the food

Without taking account of the discharges, which accomodate the fermentable residues (which ?rotted?), which generates methane emissions, and which is to some extent related to the food

Approximately, the conclusion is that if we take all in account, we are more nearly the third than quarter of the French emissions as regards filling us our stomachs! Of course, in any rigour it would be necessary to reprocess all these emissions to take account of exports (for which the emissions are to be charged to the stomachs of the others) and of the imports (which, with my calculation, enable us to fill the paunch without it costing of it us one gram of emissions in the national total), but finally we should not be very loins truth nevertheless.
How much gas with effect of greenhouse awareness2007 in such or such food?

To add ?national? emissions is not the only exercise to which we can deliver ourselves with the emissions of gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 related to the food. Another calculation which is not without interest is to know ?how much gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007? were necessary to have one kg of food, without being concerned with know if the emissions took place in Pierre, Paul or Jacques.

If we wish to know ?how much gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 are necessary to enable us to eat one kg of chicken of battery, we will have to hold account, in proportion to what was necessary to obtain our bestiau (such an approach is called an analysis of cycle of life):

emissions coming from the heating of the room of breeding,

fossil energy used by the tractor for the culture of cereals eaten by the animal,

fossil energy necessary to manufacture manures which will be used to cultivate cereals eaten by the animal,

emissions of N2O when these manures are épandus in the fields (see page on gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007),

fossil energy necessary to manufacture food of chicken (the chickens of battery seldom eat ?raw? cereals, but rather of food prepared by under sector of agroalimentary industry) starting from cultivated cereals,

and still of the emissions related to the manufacture of the agricultural machines, the fossil energy of drying of the grains, and even of the energy which was necessary to refine the oil which will be consumed by the tractor?.

Lastly, if the food results from a ruminant (milk, cow beef, etc) it is also necessary to take account of the belches of these large animals. Indeed, the ruminants have an intense fermentation in their stomachs (I point out that a cow has 4 stomachs!) who produces methane, and I also point out that in France, the weight of the cows is higher than the weight of the men: we have 20 million bovines in France, whose average weight is a few hundred kg.

The results of such an analysis of the emissions ?of the oil field to the stomach of the consumer? (in order of magnitude, each bar is precise to ±50%) are presented below:

Emissions of gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 related to the production of one kg food, with a discrimination by gas. The meat gets along with bone (it is ?about carcass equivalent?) but without traitementde agroalimentary industry neither packing nor transport.

I added, to give a comparative data, the emissions corresponding to 100 km in the average car and mixed route (bars of right-hand side).

Source: Jancovici/Ademe, Assessment Carbon, 2006 (to be appeared)
The bio, it is much better for the climatic change?

What does it occur when one starts to cultivate bio?

one avoids fossil energy necessary to the manufacture of manures of synthesis, which are prohibited in the system bio, and thus certain stations of emission disappear,

idem for the plant health ones,

there are nevertheless emissions of N2O related to the spreading of the manures and other nitrogen contributions,

the outputs are less low, whereas the hours of tractor are about the same ones, and thus the CO2 emissions per manufacturing unit increase for certain stations.

finally, bio or not bio, the ruminants continues with roter methane!

If we take stock of all these contrary effects, we arrive at the following diagram

Emissions of gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 related to the production of one kg food in system bio. The emissions of CO2 and N2O drop, and the total emissions per kg are decreased by approximately 30%.

Source: IFEN, 2004

The sad truth is thus the following one: to eat bio it is well, but for the climate it is especially necessary to eat less meat (what blow makes easier to eat it bio, and not to be deprived some as much!). Moreover to eat as much meat than now prohibited the conversion of a broad part of agriculture to the bio, because because of the fall of the outputs (for the culture of cereals and fodder eaten by the animals) one would need much more agricultural surface than do not have we the available one.
How much gas for purpose of greenhouse in our plate?

Posted: April 30th, 2007, 5:24pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: Warming global [edit]
Last Day !!! Would the fact of eating generate gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007? Thus let us go ..... And yet, the fact of eating weighs very heavy, in France, in the gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007. We owe that with the fact that agriculture is responsible for the main part of the emissions for gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 other than CO2: nitrogen methane and protoxide essentially.

But if we want to count in an exhaustive way what is necessary to our food, he is necessary to look in a way a little broader than the only direct emissions of agriculture. Indeed:

all agriculture, except for the surfaces cultivated in bio, consumes manures and pesticides of synthesis, which should be produced, and that requires of energy fosile, therefore generates CO2 emissions (manures of synthesis are produced starting from natural gas: clean year seuns, we eat gas and oil!).

If we reason with the hectare, manures of synthesis represent the main part of the emissions upstream, the pesticides being much more marginal for the gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007. In addition the intermediate chemical reactions of the production of manures generate also N2O. Of course, the emissions related to the manufacture of these products are not counted in the station ?agriculture?, but in the station ?industry?, and in more we do not produce, in France, that part of manures of synthesis which we use, with the result that the corresponding emissions will be counted in the national total of another country (such an amount of worse for them!).

the expenditure devoted to the purchase of ?rough? products, for example of vegetables or the fresh fruits in bulk, or the fresh meat, accounts for nothing any more but 20% of the whole of than we devote to the food (on average). The remainder of our expenditure is devoted to productions of the food industry: pastes, preserves, frozen, flat prepared, biscuits and confectioneries, drinks, etc But these industries consume energy on line, and thus emit gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 which ?will be included? in the products that will buy to us then: in France, 15% of the consumption of energy of industry are the fact of agroalimentary industries.

then these products are generally packed. It is that the manufacture of packing conomme a significant fraction of the ?basic? materials which we produce (steel, aluminium, plastics, etc). All confused uses, this production of basic materials is responsible for 70% to 80% of the emissions of industry, with thus part of this unit which will be found in what we buy with the supermarket.

Distribution by use of materials basic (steel, aluminium, cement and assimilated, plastic, glass) in Europe in 2001. The packing, which does not certainly concern that foodstuffs, represents a quarter of the emissions related to the production of ?basic materials?: almost as much as building materials!

raw data: Eurostat; APME

let us continue our inventory: a significant part of the road transport of goods relates to the foodstuffs,

Leaves the foodstuffs and manures in the road transport goods to France in 2001 (it is about the proportion of the tonnes.km).

Source: Ministry for transport

As one can see it on the graph above, a third of the trucks which make us so much pester on the roads transports finished or intermediate products of the agricultural activity. They can be alive animals, fodder, milks, of frozen, etc Incidemment, it is quite obvious that with each time we buy Spanish oranges or grapes produced to 500 km of the place of purchase, we buy at the same time the transport which goes with, we can feel sorry for us then with difficulty! The graph above does not take account of the emissions related to air transport or maritime, for which I do not have data,

finally the purchase of these processed products is often carried out in great surfaces (whereas the markets sell fresh products mainly), which generates additional power consumptions:

one needs electricity to preserve frozen, especially in display units open on outside and of the customers who do not want to walk in coat in the store!

it is necessary to heat the store the winter and to air-condition it the summer: the energy of heating and air-conditioning of the stores represents, in France, between 1,5 and 2 million tons are equivalent carbon (electricity included, but that Ci does not lead to large emissions since in France almost all is made with nuclear power and hydroelectricity), i.e. between 1 and 2% of the national emissions.

great surfaces, which absorb 80% of the retail trade of foodstuffs (approximately) are often located in periphery of city, therefore we let us go there by car (these emissions there are not counted here).

and for the house, it is necessary to continue to spend of energy: refrigeration and congelation, cooking, and even the electric grater of carrots! Electric consumption related to the food (refrigerators, freezers, lava-vaiselle, cooking, without counting the small household appliances) accounts for 22% of domestic kWh,

then our packing finishes with the dustbin, and there still we have gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 for the treatment of end of lifetime (even in the event of recycling).

finally 25% of the weight of what us tokens consists of food waste, and when they go in discharge this waste lead to methane emissions, probably not negligible in the emissions of waste taken as a whole.
How much gas for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 made Ca, any Ca?

If we now try to make a total of all that precedes, that brings us to the table which follows, still perfectible, but which gives an idea of the stations:

It is about a careful personal estimate, because I am unable to know the share of displacements in the car which corresponds to the food races. The cars emit 20 million tons on the whole are equivalent carbon, and quantifies it inffiqué supposes that 5% correspond to the food races. Manufacture of the trucks and refining of the gas oil

The emissions gloables of the sector of waste are about 4 million tons are equivalent carbon, and thus the figure selected supposes that 25% come from the incineration of plastic packing or the fermentation of food waste. Methane emissions of food waste total of the emissions attached to the food

Without taking account of the discharges, which accomodate the fermentable residues (which ?rotted?), which generates methane emissions, and which is to some extent related to the food

Approximately, the conclusion is that if we take all in account, we are more nearly the third than quarter of the French emissions as regards filling us our stomachs! Of course, in any rigour it would be necessary to reprocess all these emissions to take account of exports (for which the emissions are to be charged to the stomachs of the others) and of the imports (which, with my calculation, enable us to fill the paunch without it costing of it us one gram of emissions in the national total), but finally we should not be very loins truth nevertheless.
How much gas with effect of greenhouse awareness2007 in such or such food?

To add ?national? emissions is not the only exercise to which we can deliver ourselves with the emissions of gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 related to the food. Another calculation which is not without interest is to know ?how much gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007? were necessary to have one kg of food, without being concerned with know if the emissions took place in Pierre, Paul or Jacques.

If we wish to know ?how much gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 are necessary to enable us to eat one kg of chicken of battery, we will have to hold account, in proportion to what was necessary to obtain our bestiau (such an approach is called an analysis of cycle of life):

emissions coming from the heating of the room of breeding,

fossil energy used by the tractor for the culture of cereals eaten by the animal,

fossil energy necessary to manufacture manures which will be used to cultivate cereals eaten by the animal,

emissions of N2O when these manures are épandus in the fields (see page on gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007),

fossil energy necessary to manufacture food of chicken (the chickens of battery seldom eat ?raw? cereals, but rather of food prepared by under sector of agroalimentary industry) starting from cultivated cereals,

and still of the emissions related to the manufacture of the agricultural machines, the fossil energy of drying of the grains, and even of the energy which was necessary to refine the oil which will be consumed by the tractor?.

Lastly, if the food results from a ruminant (milk, cow beef, etc) it is also necessary to take account of the belches of these large animals. Indeed, the ruminants have an intense fermentation in their stomachs (I point out that a cow has 4 stomachs!) who produces methane, and I also point out that in France, the weight of the cows is higher than the weight of the men: we have 20 million bovines in France, whose average weight is a few hundred kg.

The results of such an analysis of the emissions ?of the oil field to the stomach of the consumer? (in order of magnitude, each bar is precise to ±50%) are presented below:

Emissions of gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 related to the production of one kg food, with a discrimination by gas. The meat gets along with bone (it is ?about carcass equivalent?) but without traitementde agroalimentary industry neither packing nor transport.

I added, to give a comparative data, the emissions corresponding to 100 km in the average car and mixed route (bars of right-hand side).

Source: Jancovici/Ademe, Assessment Carbon, 2006 (to be appeared)
The bio, it is much better for the climatic change?

What does it occur when one starts to cultivate bio?

one avoids fossil energy necessary to the manufacture of manures of synthesis, which are prohibited in the system bio, and thus certain stations of emission disappear,

idem for the plant health ones,

there are nevertheless emissions of N2O related to the spreading of the manures and other nitrogen contributions,

the outputs are less low, whereas the hours of tractor are about the same ones, and thus the CO2 emissions per manufacturing unit increase for certain stations.

finally, bio or not bio, the ruminants continues with roter methane!

If we take stock of all these contrary effects, we arrive at the following diagram

Emissions of gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 related to the production of one kg food in system bio. The emissions of CO2 and N2O drop, and the total emissions per kg are decreased by approximately 30%.

Source: IFEN, 2004

The sad truth is thus the following one: to eat bio it is well, but for the climate it is especially necessary to eat less meat (what blow makes easier to eat it bio, and not to be deprived some as much!). Moreover to eat as much meat than now prohibited the conversion of a broad part of agriculture to the bio, because because of the fall of the outputs (for the culture of cereals and fodder eaten by the animals) one would need much more agricultural surface than do not have we the available one.
Which acts of the everyday life “make” effect of greenhouse?

Posted: April 29th, 2007, 6:21pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: Warming global [edit]
The effect of greenhouse awareness2007, it is well known, it is the fault with the industrialists, the Americans, the Chinese who have only not to start to consume prétrole, but?.especially not mine!

Alas, us are all, through our acts daily, of transmitters direct or indirect of gas with effect of greenhouse awareness2007, either because we burn directly a fossile fuel (oil, coal, gas), which generates CO2 emissions, or because we choose to buy a product or to consume a service whose manufacture generates gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007. To completely exonerate our responsibility for consumers is probably to go well quickly in work!

I propose to you below some orders of magnitude of emissions related to acts of the everyday life. Except exception, the figures include all gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007. All these figures are obtained starting from the method Bilan Carbon that I contributed to develop on behalf of the ADEME.

To give a direction to all these figures, it will be useful to recall that the annual average emission by French is 2,2 tons are equivalent carbon (measuring unit of gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007) all confused gases, by taking of account the well consisted the management of forest surfaces in France. It will be especially useful to compare these figures so that it is necessary to emit with more to stabilize the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?.
To heat itself

To heat a house, one will emit (primarily in the form of CO2):

with fuel, on the basis of 3.000 liter consumed: 2,4 tons are equivalent carbon (by taking into account all the emissions related to the extraction of oil, its refining, and well on its combustion in our boiler);

with natural gas, for the same quantity of energy provided to the boiler, that is to say 29.780 kWh: 1,9 ton are equivalent carbon (there too, by taking account of the emissions related on the extraction and the transport of natural gas),

with electricity, for a quantity of energy in the radiator equal to that provided by 3.000 liters of fuel and an output of boiler to 80% (what corresponds to 24.000 kw electric approximately), and by supposing that we take the average emissions of the park of power stations:

0,6 ton are equivalent carbon in France (where electricity is to 90% nuclear power and hydroelectric);

nearly 3,8 tons in the United Kingdom (30% of nuclear power, the remainder containing fossils),

approximately 4 tons in the USA (20% of nuclear power, the remainder include/understand much coal).

more than 5,5 tons in Denmark (electricity primarily produced containing coal, in spite of the wind mills?) or in Greece (much coal also).

It is important to specify that in winter, moment when one heats oneself with electricity, one uses in supplement of the power stations with coal (in France), which poses a problem of method not simple: to which allots one the carbon emissions related to the starting of the power stations with coal?

to the electric heating, its adversaries say,

to everyone, the others say, because there is not that the heating of which the use increases the winter, and in any event the electric radiators consume twice as much as what is produced by the power stations with coal, therefore each radiator cannot be regarded as ?any coal?!

In fact, the situation deserves more than one fast analysis?.
To move

For a displacement of 15.000 km (in France, a car traverses on average 14.000 km per annum), one will emit, according to the means of transport used:

in car gasoline of small-engined car, in the countryside, therefore without congestions, on a basis of 5 liters to the 100: approximately 0,8 ton are equivalent carbon, by taking account of the manufacture of the car and the emissions of the refining of the gasoline. On the other hand the hydrocarbon combustion produces as precursors of ozone (2.000 times more ?heating? as CO2) and of nitrogen oxides not taken into account in my calculations.

in the big-engined car, urban zone (with part of the comprising way of the congestions), on a basis of 14 liters to the 100: approximately 2 tons are equivalent carbon (moreover the large cars traverse an annual mileage higher than small: they make more nearly 20.000 km per annum than of 15.000).

in the RER (suburban energy to work to 30 km of its residence) or in train (10 return tickets Paris Marseilles): only 35 kg are equivalent carbon by anybody, without taking account of the manufacture of the train (they is 5 to 10 times abroad safe in Switzerland and Sweden), that is to say 20 to 30 times less than one person only small conveys.

by plane mail (10 return tickets Paris Marseilles) runs: approximately 1,2 ton are equivalent carbon by anybody (by taking account of all gases) in second class, that is to say 40 times more than in the train, and even 2,7 tons are equivalent carbon classifies businesses of them! (bus in classes businesses one occupies more space on the ground).

in plane long mail (a return ticket the Europe-USA): approximately 0,9 ton of carbon per anybody (by taking account of all gases) in second, but 3,15 tons in First (and it Agrees about it was probably even more!), that is to say 25 to 80 times more than in boat (with which one would emit 40 kg are equivalent carbon approximately).

It is noted immediately that, in the plane, each passenger emits the equivalent of what it would have done only in the small car at the same distance. One 747 on Paris-New-York it is thus the equivalent from 450 to 500 Twingo which traverses 12.000 km.

I as calculated as an airport as Roissy was indirectly at the origin of something ranging between 5 to 10% of our national emissions.
To eat

Agriculture:

the production of a ton of corn generates approximately 110 kg are equivalent carbon, coming for 25% from the N2O resulting from manures and for 75% from CO2 resulting from the production from manures and the pesticides and the fuel from the tractor,

to produce a ton of ox carcass (is to say the ?meat with bone?) generates approximately 4 tons are equivalent carbon (more than 10 for calf), coming to some extent of the methane generated by digestion, and to some extent of the emissions related to the culture of cereals and fodder to nourish it, knowing that in France the essence of the cereal culture is used to nourish animals,

for a ton of poultry meat, 0,5 to 1,5 ton are equivalent carbon according to the poultry and its quality.
To produce then to deliver

Basic materials:

the manufacture of a ton of steel produces approximately 0,8 ton are equivalent carbon (starting from ore), of aluminium approximately 3 tons are equivalent carbon (also starting from ore), all gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 taken into account.

the manufacture of a ton of plastic generates from 0,5 to 1,6 ton are equivalent carbon according to the type of plastic,

the manufacture of a ton of new glass generates approximately 0,4 ton, but from only 0,12 ton if one starts from cullet (recovered glass then crushed)

the manufacture of a ton of cement generates approximately 0,25 ton are equivalent carbon,

the ?manufacture? of a ton of wood stores approximately 0,5 ton are equivalent carbon. To use a ton of sawlog in the place of a ton of steel (for example for a building) allows an economy (a ?well?) of more than one ton are equivalent carbon on the whole if wood comes from European forests (because it is necessary that wood is replanted so that forest management is a well, if not it is about deforestation!).
Carriage of goods:

the transport of a ton of fruits coming from Spain (1.000 km) in semitrailer generates approximately 25 kg are equivalent carbon (this figure takes account of the average rate of ways with vacuum carried out by the heavy lorries, as well as average rate of filling of the truck);

a ton of apples coming from the market-gardener of the corner in light utility (25 km) generates approximately 3 kg are equivalent carbon,

a ton of mangos coming from South Africa by plane (and traversing 10.000 km in round numbers) generates 3,2 tons are equivalent carbon,

a ton of oranges coming from Tunisia by plane generates approximately 1,2 tons are equivalent carbon,

a ton of Paris-Nice mail by night train (that the Post office gave up it does not have there a long time) generated 2 kg are equivalent carbon, in the truck it will make approximately 20 kg of them, and in the plane (Chronopost or equivalent) 550 kg (250 times more than in the train!).

Once again, all that forwards by the plane generates emissions considerably more important than by any other means of transport, but that does not make the truck (and even the train in certain countries of Europe) ?climatically virtuous? for as much!

Of course, all these indications correspond to average values, and are likely (in particular for the food) to vary according to the circumstances. One can find on this site some considerations on the individual acts which make it possible to reduce the gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007

Following the reading of these some figures, I hope that the reader will accept that it seems difficult that the emissions can be strongly reduced by the action of I do not know which courageous and clear-sighted politician, who would have only ?to do what it is necessary? so that the emissions drop, without we depriving ourselves to consume what it us plait for as much .....
Which acts of the everyday life “make” effect of greenhouse?

Posted: April 29th, 2007, 5:21pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: Warming global [edit]
The effect of greenhouse awareness2007, it is well known, it is the fault with the industrialists, the Americans, the Chinese who have only not to start to consume prétrole, but?.especially not mine!

Alas, us are all, through our acts daily, of transmitters direct or indirect of gas with effect of greenhouse awareness2007, either because we burn directly a fossile fuel (oil, coal, gas), which generates CO2 emissions, or because we choose to buy a product or to consume a service whose manufacture generates gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007. To completely exonerate our responsibility for consumers is probably to go well quickly in work!

I propose to you below some orders of magnitude of emissions related to acts of the everyday life. Except exception, the figures include all gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007. All these figures are obtained starting from the method Bilan Carbon that I contributed to develop on behalf of the ADEME.

To give a direction to all these figures, it will be useful to recall that the annual average emission by French is 2,2 tons are equivalent carbon (measuring unit of gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007) all confused gases, by taking of account the well consisted the management of forest surfaces in France. It will be especially useful to compare these figures so that it is necessary to emit with more to stabilize the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?.
To heat itself

To heat a house, one will emit (primarily in the form of CO2):

with fuel, on the basis of 3.000 liter consumed: 2,4 tons are equivalent carbon (by taking into account all the emissions related to the extraction of oil, its refining, and well on its combustion in our boiler);

with natural gas, for the same quantity of energy provided to the boiler, that is to say 29.780 kWh: 1,9 ton are equivalent carbon (there too, by taking account of the emissions related on the extraction and the transport of natural gas),

with electricity, for a quantity of energy in the radiator equal to that provided by 3.000 liters of fuel and an output of boiler to 80% (what corresponds to 24.000 kw electric approximately), and by supposing that we take the average emissions of the park of power stations:

0,6 ton are equivalent carbon in France (where electricity is to 90% nuclear power and hydroelectric);

nearly 3,8 tons in the United Kingdom (30% of nuclear power, the remainder containing fossils),

approximately 4 tons in the USA (20% of nuclear power, the remainder include/understand much coal).

more than 5,5 tons in Denmark (electricity primarily produced containing coal, in spite of the wind mills?) or in Greece (much coal also).

It is important to specify that in winter, moment when one heats oneself with electricity, one uses in supplement of the power stations with coal (in France), which poses a problem of method not simple: to which allots one the carbon emissions related to the starting of the power stations with coal?

to the electric heating, its adversaries say,

to everyone, the others say, because there is not that the heating of which the use increases the winter, and in any event the electric radiators consume twice as much as what is produced by the power stations with coal, therefore each radiator cannot be regarded as ?any coal?!

In fact, the situation deserves more than one fast analysis?.
To move

For a displacement of 15.000 km (in France, a car traverses on average 14.000 km per annum), one will emit, according to the means of transport used:

in car gasoline of small-engined car, in the countryside, therefore without congestions, on a basis of 5 liters to the 100: approximately 0,8 ton are equivalent carbon, by taking account of the manufacture of the car and the emissions of the refining of the gasoline. On the other hand the hydrocarbon combustion produces as precursors of ozone (2.000 times more ?heating? as CO2) and of nitrogen oxides not taken into account in my calculations.

in the big-engined car, urban zone (with part of the comprising way of the congestions), on a basis of 14 liters to the 100: approximately 2 tons are equivalent carbon (moreover the large cars traverse an annual mileage higher than small: they make more nearly 20.000 km per annum than of 15.000).

in the RER (suburban energy to work to 30 km of its residence) or in train (10 return tickets Paris Marseilles): only 35 kg are equivalent carbon by anybody, without taking account of the manufacture of the train (they is 5 to 10 times abroad safe in Switzerland and Sweden), that is to say 20 to 30 times less than one person only small conveys.

by plane mail (10 return tickets Paris Marseilles) runs: approximately 1,2 ton are equivalent carbon by anybody (by taking account of all gases) in second class, that is to say 40 times more than in the train, and even 2,7 tons are equivalent carbon classifies businesses of them! (bus in classes businesses one occupies more space on the ground).

in plane long mail (a return ticket the Europe-USA): approximately 0,9 ton of carbon per anybody (by taking account of all gases) in second, but 3,15 tons in First (and it Agrees about it was probably even more!), that is to say 25 to 80 times more than in boat (with which one would emit 40 kg are equivalent carbon approximately).

It is noted immediately that, in the plane, each passenger emits the equivalent of what it would have done only in the small car at the same distance. One 747 on Paris-New-York it is thus the equivalent from 450 to 500 Twingo which traverses 12.000 km.

I as calculated as an airport as Roissy was indirectly at the origin of something ranging between 5 to 10% of our national emissions.
To eat

Agriculture:

the production of a ton of corn generates approximately 110 kg are equivalent carbon, coming for 25% from the N2O resulting from manures and for 75% from CO2 resulting from the production from manures and the pesticides and the fuel from the tractor,

to produce a ton of ox carcass (is to say the ?meat with bone?) generates approximately 4 tons are equivalent carbon (more than 10 for calf), coming to some extent of the methane generated by digestion, and to some extent of the emissions related to the culture of cereals and fodder to nourish it, knowing that in France the essence of the cereal culture is used to nourish animals,

for a ton of poultry meat, 0,5 to 1,5 ton are equivalent carbon according to the poultry and its quality.
To produce then to deliver

Basic materials:

the manufacture of a ton of steel produces approximately 0,8 ton are equivalent carbon (starting from ore), of aluminium approximately 3 tons are equivalent carbon (also starting from ore), all gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 taken into account.

the manufacture of a ton of plastic generates from 0,5 to 1,6 ton are equivalent carbon according to the type of plastic,

the manufacture of a ton of new glass generates approximately 0,4 ton, but from only 0,12 ton if one starts from cullet (recovered glass then crushed)

the manufacture of a ton of cement generates approximately 0,25 ton are equivalent carbon,

the ?manufacture? of a ton of wood stores approximately 0,5 ton are equivalent carbon. To use a ton of sawlog in the place of a ton of steel (for example for a building) allows an economy (a ?well?) of more than one ton are equivalent carbon on the whole if wood comes from European forests (because it is necessary that wood is replanted so that forest management is a well, if not it is about deforestation!).
Carriage of goods:

the transport of a ton of fruits coming from Spain (1.000 km) in semitrailer generates approximately 25 kg are equivalent carbon (this figure takes account of the average rate of ways with vacuum carried out by the heavy lorries, as well as average rate of filling of the truck);

a ton of apples coming from the market-gardener of the corner in light utility (25 km) generates approximately 3 kg are equivalent carbon,

a ton of mangos coming from South Africa by plane (and traversing 10.000 km in round numbers) generates 3,2 tons are equivalent carbon,

a ton of oranges coming from Tunisia by plane generates approximately 1,2 tons are equivalent carbon,

a ton of Paris-Nice mail by night train (that the Post office gave up it does not have there a long time) generated 2 kg are equivalent carbon, in the truck it will make approximately 20 kg of them, and in the plane (Chronopost or equivalent) 550 kg (250 times more than in the train!).

Once again, all that forwards by the plane generates emissions considerably more important than by any other means of transport, but that does not make the truck (and even the train in certain countries of Europe) ?climatically virtuous? for as much!

Of course, all these indications correspond to average values, and are likely (in particular for the food) to vary according to the circumstances. One can find on this site some considerations on the individual acts which make it possible to reduce the gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007

Following the reading of these some figures, I hope that the reader will accept that it seems difficult that the emissions can be strongly reduced by the action of I do not know which courageous and clear-sighted politician, who would have only ?to do what it is necessary? so that the emissions drop, without we depriving ourselves to consume what it us plait for as much .....
With what currently does resemble our power consumption?

Posted: April 28th, 2007, 6:18pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: awareness Warming [edit]
Since 1860, date of the first statistics which I could find, the world power consumption did not cease growing in a more or less exponential way

A zoom over the recent period confirms that the 2 oil crises and the War of the Gulf led to a light momentary inflecting, but nothing more.

The near total of our CO2 emissions - and part of the emissions of other gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 - result from our power consumption. However, tendentially, i.e. ?if one continues like now?, consumption of energy strongly will increase,

under the effect of the demographic growth of first share

under the effect of the economic growth then, knowing that the correlation between growth of the consumption of energy and economic growth is currently rather strong with our socio-economic system into force (what goes in the two directions: a good recession, it does not have today nothing like it there cause a drop in the consumption of energy!)

finally of a wish of increase in the consumption of energy per capita.
Why will we have this increase ?continuously like now??

Because, in the Western countries:

We consume more and more manufactured goods whose manufacture cost energy and generate gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 (it is famous ?the increase in the household consumption?, which everyone generally regards as being a good news),

We déplacons ourselves more often and further, and regard this possibility as a nonnegotiable right,

We eat meat more and more (finally this increase seems a little to have stabilized ourselves recently), but the production of meat, étonnemment, requires a great consumption of fossil energy; ?in? one kg of ox there are several kg of hydrocarbons!

In short the ?economic growth? (famous growth, which is also regarded as a good news) tends to make us consume more energy, even with the ?dematerialization? of the economy.
And because, in the developing countries ??:

The inhabitants aspire to drive car, like us,

they aspire to take the plane, like us,

they aspire to consume many consumer goods, like us.

they aspire to eat much meat, like us (the meat consumption was multiplied by 5 in France of 1800 to 2000, and I am ready to bet part of my economies which a similar evolution occurred in considerable Western countries).

In short they aspire to our way of life, particularly with that of American, who is the large-scale consumers of energy per capita of the planet, and who, through their audio-visual exports, which are the first of the world, can show their manner of living with the whole ground.

Obviously, we could not prevent them from increasing their consumption in a peaceful way without changing to us same our ways of life.

There are many scenarios concerning the consumption of energy in the future, and the gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 which are associated. One can find on another page of this Internet site a summary description of the scenarios used by the GIEC to feed the climatic models, or, on another page, some reflexions on the scenarios which appeared in the ?Report/ratio of the Club of Rome?.

An important remark to finish: the scenarios usually diffused by the great international organizations (OECD, World Energy Council, United Nations, etc) do not take into account any ?looping?, i.e. that the consumption of energy is inflected by no negative event which rises precisely from the consumption of energy. For example no scenario of these great organizations considers the possibility that an already significant consequence of the climatic change comes so much to disturb the human activities that the consumption of energy would cease being an increasing function. Only the Club of Rome had tried this kind of experiment, but its methodology did not do many small within the above-mentioned organizations.
With what currently does resemble our power consumption?

Posted: April 28th, 2007, 5:18pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: awareness Warming [edit]
Since 1860, date of the first statistics which I could find, the world power consumption did not cease growing in a more or less exponential way

A zoom over the recent period confirms that the 2 oil crises and the War of the Gulf led to a light momentary inflecting, but nothing more.

The near total of our CO2 emissions - and part of the emissions of other gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 - result from our power consumption. However, tendentially, i.e. ?if one continues like now?, consumption of energy strongly will increase,

under the effect of the demographic growth of first share

under the effect of the economic growth then, knowing that the correlation between growth of the consumption of energy and economic growth is currently rather strong with our socio-economic system into force (what goes in the two directions: a good recession, it does not have today nothing like it there cause a drop in the consumption of energy!)

finally of a wish of increase in the consumption of energy per capita.
Why will we have this increase ?continuously like now??

Because, in the Western countries:

We consume more and more manufactured goods whose manufacture cost energy and generate gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 (it is famous ?the increase in the household consumption?, which everyone generally regards as being a good news),

We déplacons ourselves more often and further, and regard this possibility as a nonnegotiable right,

We eat meat more and more (finally this increase seems a little to have stabilized ourselves recently), but the production of meat, étonnemment, requires a great consumption of fossil energy; ?in? one kg of ox there are several kg of hydrocarbons!

In short the ?economic growth? (famous growth, which is also regarded as a good news) tends to make us consume more energy, even with the ?dematerialization? of the economy.
And because, in the developing countries ??:

The inhabitants aspire to drive car, like us,

they aspire to take the plane, like us,

they aspire to consume many consumer goods, like us.

they aspire to eat much meat, like us (the meat consumption was multiplied by 5 in France of 1800 to 2000, and I am ready to bet part of my economies which a similar evolution occurred in considerable Western countries).

In short they aspire to our way of life, particularly with that of American, who is the large-scale consumers of energy per capita of the planet, and who, through their audio-visual exports, which are the first of the world, can show their manner of living with the whole ground.

Obviously, we could not prevent them from increasing their consumption in a peaceful way without changing to us same our ways of life.

There are many scenarios concerning the consumption of energy in the future, and the gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 which are associated. One can find on another page of this Internet site a summary description of the scenarios used by the GIEC to feed the climatic models, or, on another page, some reflexions on the scenarios which appeared in the ?Report/ratio of the Club of Rome?.

An important remark to finish: the scenarios usually diffused by the great international organizations (OECD, World Energy Council, United Nations, etc) do not take into account any ?looping?, i.e. that the consumption of energy is inflected by no negative event which rises precisely from the consumption of energy. For example no scenario of these great organizations considers the possibility that an already significant consequence of the climatic change comes so much to disturb the human activities that the consumption of energy would cease being an increasing function. Only the Club of Rome had tried this kind of experiment, but its methodology did not do many small within the above-mentioned organizations.
How do the gas emissions currently evolve/move for purpose of greenhouse?

Posted: April 27th, 2007, 6:16pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: awareness [edit]
Since Denis Papin and James Watt made us discover the joys of the steam engine, growth of the industrial production - which, in volume, has increased without stopping for this time, ?dematerialization? not being that a term with the mode - CO2 emissions - the principal gas for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 of human origin - increase, and not only they increase, but they tend even to increase more and more quickly, as one can easily note it below.

Incidentally there is an observation interesting to make starting from the graph above: the only occasions of reduction in the CO2 emissions were provided to us by not very pleasant events (wars, recessions?). An elementary conclusion of this remark is that, in a finished world, with emissions which cannot thus grow indefinitely, if we do not implement a voluntary programme of decrease of the emissions, it is the finitude of the world which will take care some in our place, through one or more catastrophe (S).

The bond between degree ?of industrial advance? and level of the emissions is unfortunately very strong; thus, if one distributes the world emissions of CO2 between the ?developed? countries, which are also those which undertook to reduction under the protocol of Kyoto (in the language of the protocol the list of these countries is called appendix 1), and developing countries, which do not have any, it is easy to note that:

the main part of the world emissions in 1990 comes from the industrialized countries (which however account for only 1 billion being human)

the countries in the course of industrialization have emissions however raises some faster (and they have also a stronger economic growth), with for consequence that, tendentially, the developing countries ?? will catch up with the countries ?developed? in 2020.

CO2 emissions alone in the world, in million tons of carbon equivalent. Source: Interdepartmental mission of the Effect of greenhouse awareness2007

Annex I indicates the whole of the countries which undertook to reduction within the framework of the protocol of Kyoto; it is about the developed countries or ?of transition? (country of Eastern Europe, primarily).

Annex II indicates the countries signatories of the protocol of Kyoto but which did not undertake to reduction (primarily Third World countries, of which China, world first consuming coal).

The examination of the sources of fossil CO2 explains this situation easily: indeed, this gas is emitted where we burn coal, gas and oil, and that often means ?industrial? application, or at least of ?industrial civilization?, because a car or a central heating with gas forms of it undoubtedly part.

Distribution by activity of the CO2 emissions alone in the world in 1999 (source Arranges International Energy). It is noticed that the first world source is the production of electricity. It is included/understood whereas, taking into account the levels of reduction which it would be desirable to reach if one wants seriously to be concerned with phenomenon, that the combat against the effect of greenhouse awareness2007 will be more easily gained if one does not refuse the recourse to the nuclear power.

By looking at the graph above, we can beings tempted to think that the essence of the problem comes ?from the companies?: after all, it is they which produce electricity, have the refineries, operate industries, and part of the means of transport. But another reading - interesting, undoubtedly! - can be proposed if electricity is charged to the sector which consumes it.

Distribution by activity of the CO2 emissions alone in the world in 1999 (source Arranges International Energy) by charging electricity to the sector of consumption. Surprised! the buildings make equal play with industry: the consumption of energy in the buildings - and in particular in the residences - is thus a major stake for the fight against the climatic change.

But fossil CO2 of origin does not represent the entirety of the problem: part of the effect of greenhouse awareness2007 of human origin comes from other gases, whose contribution is not completely marginal.

World emissions for various gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 in 2000 (except ozone), in million tons are equivalent carbon (PRG at 100 years). The gases except CO2 dependent for the use of energy account for approximately 1/3 of the problem. Source: GIEC

The emissions of other gases concern

CO2 related to deforestation, often arranged in the category ?change of land use?, because in practice the change of land use which generates significant CO2 emissions is deforestation: majority of wood crossed is flaring (forestry development represents only one small part of wood crossed, even if the foresters create ways which are then used by the local peasants who clear the remainder), which leads to CO2 emissions, then ground releases from additional CO2 when it is plowed (tilling exposes the humus to the air, which leads to an accelerated oxidation of the carbon of the ground),

Nitrogen methane and protoxide, which are very related to the agricultural production (in growth, because of the demographic growth on the one hand, and the increase in the animal share in the feed rations on the other hand, which requires more agricultural surfaces).

Halocarbures, of which the use is very related on the chains of the cold (in growth) or to the industry of the semiconductors (in growth also).

If we play now small play which consists in assigning to each use the emissions which relate to it, then the situation, at the world plan, arises about as follows

Approximate distribution by activity of the world gas emissions with effect of greenhouse awareness2007 in 2000, all gases taken into account, and electricity being charged to the sectors which consume it. Personal compilation carried out starting from Emission Scenarios, GIEC/IPCC, CO2 emissions by fuel, IEA, and ?Climatic Future?, of your servant.

NB: the heading ?energy production except electricity and vapor? relates to to a large extent the refineries, of which a large part of the emissions could be réimputée with transport and the residential-tertiary sector (heating).

This last Camembert cheese states clearly that the responsibility is very diluted, and especially that the food and the buildings are equal contributors, even higher, with industry and transport. Nothing is simple!
Are all the countries equal?

The level of the gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 and the distribution by activity of these emissions are of course very variable from one country to another, according to the total richness, the mode of production of electricity, the diet, and the stage of industrialization?.

Distribution by activity of the CO2 emissions alone for a developed country: the USA (electricity is charged to the sectors which consume it). The building is the first source in the world (with electricity which corresponds to him, made essentially, in the world, with fossile fuels). Source: CO2 emissions by fuel, IEA, 2004

Distribution by activity of the CO2 emissions alone for a country in the course of industrialization: China (electricity is charged to the sectors which it consommen). One notes the dominating share of industry and the very minor share of transport. Source: , CO2 emissions by fuel, IEA, 2004

We can then have emissions by country, and if the countries with important population have emissions per capita quite lower than than they are for the industrialized countries, they provide nevertheless a broad part of the world emissions because of their demography.

Gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007, without taking into account of the wells, thousands of tons of carbon equivalent, for the majority of the countries of Appendix I plus China. Source: United Nations Framework Convention one Climate Changes - UNFCCC (for China, for which one indicates only the emissions of CO2; source: Ministry for Industry)

One notices that the Eastern European countries lowered all their emissions in an important way, primarily because? of the recession occurred in these countries. Are economic growth and fight against the climatic change compatible?

However emissions per capita follow hierarchy extremely different, and if it is a fact which will not surprise anybody, namely that emissions and economic development go hand in hand more or less, this classification reveals a surprise: within the countries of G7, the emissions per capita vary from a factor 3 between the ?virtuous? countries more and those which are it less.

Gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 per capita and per annum, according to the countries, in kg of equivalent carbon (China: CO2 emissions alone), for 1990 and 1998 (classified by order of importance in 1998).

It is noticed that among the countries having a strong GNP per capita, more ?virtuous?, in addition to France, are Sweden and Switzerland, which also produce - as France - their electricity with primarily of the nuclear power and hydraulics. In the case of Switzerland the fact is added that its economy is strongly tertiarisée. It is also noticed that the emissions per capita in China are almost 10 times weaker than those of the USA.

This graph again shows the strong reduction occurred in the old communist countries.

Source: United Nations Framework Convention one Climate Changes (except China: Ministry for Industry) - UNFCCC for the emissions, and National Institute of Demographic Studies - INED for the populations; divisions were made by your servant.

?The large dreadful ones? for the climatic change are incontestably the Americans: not only their country is the first transmitter in the world, but they are also on the podium for the emissions per capita, and their emissions are in growth!

The ?underdeveloped? countries are definitely transmitting: on average, emission of CO2 fossil per capita is about 0,4 ton of equivalent carbon per annum (either a fifth of a French, and 7% of what an American ?does?), but all the countries except Annexe I (those which did not undertake to reduction) are not so low!

CO2 emissions alone per capita for a broad selection of country of Appendix 2 (country not having taken engagement of reduction with Kyoto), in tons are equivalent carbon, with well. For this only gas, Switzerland would be to 1,7 sea-green tce/. /an and the USA with more than 5.

One notes the emissions modest of India (0,3 tce/sea-green. /an approximately) and the very low emissions of the countries of the Black Africa (Nigeria is the country more populated of Africa, with more than 120 million inhabitants).

It is also noted that Israel, Singapore, South Korea, South Africa, without speaking about the oil-producing countries, which have all of the emissions per capita and/or a level of development close to that of the OECD countries, did not undertake to reduction.

Source: United Nations Framework Convention one Climate Changes - UNFCCC.
And in France?

Because of the fact that we primarily produce our electricity with processes which on our premises do not emit CO2 (nuclear for 80%, and hydraulics for 15%) the distribution is not the same one: for only CO2 in fact transport arrives at the head (figure below), followed residential station ?- tertiary sector?, which corresponds to the use of energy fossil in the houses and buildings (heating essentially, then hot water for the largest part of the remainder; air-conditioning with electricity is not taken into account because the consumption of electricity does not produce CO2, it is the production of electricity which in product possibly).

Distribution by activity of the CO2 emissions alone in France. They are the rough emissions, i.e. that the wells are not taken into account (that means primarily only the benefit related to the forestry development, which leads to carbon sequestration in the trees transformed into durable products, are not charged to the agricultural activity, which includes/understands also sylviculture).

It is noticed that the first source in France is represented by transport, with 27%, which is moreover the source which most currently believes (see low).

Moreover, if one charged to transport the emissions of the refineries to produce the gasoline (in the station ?transformation energy?), those of industry for the construction of the cars and the roads, and more generally all the emissions produced by activities contributing to displacements (insurances, garages, etc) the total would be probably closer to 40%. The nomenclature has its importance!

(*) international air transport is not taken into account, because under the protocol of Kyoto the emissions rising from air or maritime international transport are not assigned to the national totals.

Source: CITEPA

The station ?energy? corresponds for a large half to the power stations to coal and gas which we also have, and for a small half with the oil refineries (the refining of the oil led to a subsistence farming of 8% of oil refined approximately). Incidentally it is interesting to note that more one seeks to have a ?clean? fuel (free from sulphur, etc) and more that generates important CO2 emissions for the corresponding refining.

If we now take account of all gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 taken into account in the international negotiations, and not only of CO2, then the distribution changes: it is the agriculture which arrives at the head!

Distribution by activity of the emissions in France for the year 2004, all gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 (except ozone) taken into account. They are the rough emissions (I cannot charge the wells by activity!).

It is noticed that the first source becomes the agricultural activity then in the broad sense. However the same remark that above applies: if one reinstates the emissions of the refineries, industry car, etc, transport probably goes up to more than 25%.

That being, a similar reasoning can apply to agriculture: if us gather in same bag all that is emitted to provide us food (agriculture, but also the transport and the industrial transformation of food, including the manufacture of packing which we will throw then), then to eat is at the origin of a third of the emissions approximately.

Source: CITEPA, 2005

(*) international air transport is not taken into account.

Indeed, agriculture is at the origin of the main part of the emissions of gases ?except CO2?: 2/3 of methane - CH4 - and the nitrogen protoxide - N2O - come from the agricultural activities, respectively due to the bovine breeding and the use of manures. These ?minor? gases represent a little more or a little less than one quarter of the total emissions according to the manner of counting (graphic below).

Distribution by gas of the emissions in France for the year 2004. On the left: without the wells. On the right: by counting only the balance for CO2, once the wells taken into account. HFC, PFC and SF6 are industrial gases called halocarbures.

Source: CITEPA, 2005

The respective proportions of CO2, the nitrogen methane and protoxide are variable according to countries': the countries with agricultural economics have methane emissions proportionally higher, even which can be dominant, whereas the very industrialized countries and which moreover make their electricity with coal have CO2 emissions even more dominant than in France.

In do France, all the stations evolve/move in the same way?

Not: the respective evolutions are rather variable of a station to another. The figures below are well on valid only for France, but the described evolutions are found more or less in many other countries of the developed world, except for the fall of the emissions for the electricity, which is a French specificity.

Evolution by activity of the CO2 emissions alone (in France) since 1960, in million tons are equivalent carbon.

Three times are read clearly on this graph:

until the first oil crisis, all the stations of emission are in rise. ?The Thirty Glorious ones? went hand in hand with a very strong increase in the emissions whose final phase is seen clearly of 1960 to 1973.

after the oil crisis, industry is put at hunting for the gaspi efficiently, and electrifies a certain number of uses in addition, and obtains a continuous fall until the ?counterblow? (in 1985 oil became very cheap). For the same period the launching of the nuclear program led to a fast reduction - but with a 10 years shift, time to build the power stations - emissions of the energy sector (it is this fall which one necessarily does not find in other countries), and finally the private individuals also carried out economies on their premises (station ?residential tertiary sector lowers?). For this period, however, the emissions of transport continue to grow, though less quickly than over the period 1960-1974.

since the counterblow of 1985, all the stations are more or less stable, except transport which continues on their impetus and of the agriculture, which continues its mechanization (which primarily consists in replacing individuals by oil!).
How do the gas emissions currently evolve/move for purpose of greenhouse?

Posted: April 27th, 2007, 5:16pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: awareness [edit]
Since Denis Papin and James Watt made us discover the joys of the steam engine, growth of the industrial production - which, in volume, has increased without stopping for this time, ?dematerialization? not being that a term with the mode - CO2 emissions - the principal gas for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 of human origin - increase, and not only they increase, but they tend even to increase more and more quickly, as one can easily note it below.

Incidentally there is an observation interesting to make starting from the graph above: the only occasions of reduction in the CO2 emissions were provided to us by not very pleasant events (wars, recessions?). An elementary conclusion of this remark is that, in a finished world, with emissions which cannot thus grow indefinitely, if we do not implement a voluntary programme of decrease of the emissions, it is the finitude of the world which will take care some in our place, through one or more catastrophe (S).

The bond between degree ?of industrial advance? and level of the emissions is unfortunately very strong; thus, if one distributes the world emissions of CO2 between the ?developed? countries, which are also those which undertook to reduction under the protocol of Kyoto (in the language of the protocol the list of these countries is called appendix 1), and developing countries, which do not have any, it is easy to note that:

the main part of the world emissions in 1990 comes from the industrialized countries (which however account for only 1 billion being human)

the countries in the course of industrialization have emissions however raises some faster (and they have also a stronger economic growth), with for consequence that, tendentially, the developing countries ?? will catch up with the countries ?developed? in 2020.

CO2 emissions alone in the world, in million tons of carbon equivalent. Source: Interdepartmental mission of the Effect of greenhouse awareness2007

Annex I indicates the whole of the countries which undertook to reduction within the framework of the protocol of Kyoto; it is about the developed countries or ?of transition? (country of Eastern Europe, primarily).

Annex II indicates the countries signatories of the protocol of Kyoto but which did not undertake to reduction (primarily Third World countries, of which China, world first consuming coal).

The examination of the sources of fossil CO2 explains this situation easily: indeed, this gas is emitted where we burn coal, gas and oil, and that often means ?industrial? application, or at least of ?industrial civilization?, because a car or a central heating with gas forms of it undoubtedly part.

Distribution by activity of the CO2 emissions alone in the world in 1999 (source Arranges International Energy). It is noticed that the first world source is the production of electricity. It is included/understood whereas, taking into account the levels of reduction which it would be desirable to reach if one wants seriously to be concerned with phenomenon, that the combat against the effect of greenhouse awareness2007 will be more easily gained if one does not refuse the recourse to the nuclear power.

By looking at the graph above, we can beings tempted to think that the essence of the problem comes ?from the companies?: after all, it is they which produce electricity, have the refineries, operate industries, and part of the means of transport. But another reading - interesting, undoubtedly! - can be proposed if electricity is charged to the sector which consumes it.

Distribution by activity of the CO2 emissions alone in the world in 1999 (source Arranges International Energy) by charging electricity to the sector of consumption. Surprised! the buildings make equal play with industry: the consumption of energy in the buildings - and in particular in the residences - is thus a major stake for the fight against the climatic change.

But fossil CO2 of origin does not represent the entirety of the problem: part of the effect of greenhouse awareness2007 of human origin comes from other gases, whose contribution is not completely marginal.

World emissions for various gases for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 in 2000 (except ozone), in million tons are equivalent carbon (PRG at 100 years). The gases except CO2 dependent for the use of energy account for approximately 1/3 of the problem. Source: GIEC

The emissions of other gases concern

CO2 related to deforestation, often arranged in the category ?change of land use?, because in practice the change of land use which generates significant CO2 emissions is deforestation: majority of wood crossed is flaring (forestry development represents only one small part of wood crossed, even if the foresters create ways which are then used by the local peasants who clear the remainder), which leads to CO2 emissions, then ground releases from additional CO2 when it is plowed (tilling exposes the humus to the air, which leads to an accelerated oxidation of the carbon of the ground),

Nitrogen methane and protoxide, which are very related to the agricultural production (in growth, because of the demographic growth on the one hand, and the increase in the animal share in the feed rations on the other hand, which requires more agricultural surfaces).

Halocarbures, of which the use is very related on the chains of the cold (in growth) or to the industry of the semiconductors (in growth also).

If we play now small play which consists in assigning to each use the emissions which relate to it, then the situation, at the world plan, arises about as follows

Approximate distribution by activity of the world gas emissions with effect of greenhouse awareness2007 in 2000, all gases taken into account, and electricity being charged to the sectors which consume it. Personal compilation carried out starting from Emission Scenarios, GIEC/IPCC, CO2 emissions by fuel, IEA, and ?Climatic Future?, of your servant.

NB: the heading ?energy production except electricity and vapor? relates to to a large extent the refineries, of which a large part of the emissions could be réimputée with transport and the residential-tertiary sector (heating).

This last Camembert cheese states clearly that the responsibility is very diluted, and especially that the food and the buildings are equal contributors, even higher, with industry and transport. Nothing is simple!
Are all the countries equal?

The level of the gas emissions for purpose of greenhouse awareness2007 and the distribution by activity of these emissions are of course very variable from one country to another, according to the total richness, the mode of production of electricity, the diet, and the stage of industrialization?.

Distribution by activity of the CO2 emissions alone for a developed country: the USA (electricity is charged to the sectors which consume it). The building is the first source in the world (with electricity which corresponds to him, made essentially, in the worl

Global Warming Feedreader » global-warming-awareness-2007

Feeds

global-warming-awareness-2007

Did I Win ?

Posted: May 1st, 2007, 3:41pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: championship world SEO [edit]

Did I Win ?

Posted: May 1st, 2007, 2:41pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: championship world SEO [edit]

How much gas for purpose of greenhouse in our plate?

Posted: April 30th, 2007, 6:24pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: Warming global [edit]

How much gas for purpose of greenhouse in our plate?

Posted: April 30th, 2007, 5:24pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: Warming global [edit]

Which acts of the everyday life “make” effect of greenhouse?

Posted: April 29th, 2007, 6:21pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: Warming global [edit]

Which acts of the everyday life “make” effect of greenhouse?

Posted: April 29th, 2007, 5:21pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: Warming global [edit]

With what currently does resemble our power consumption?

Posted: April 28th, 2007, 6:18pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: awareness Warming [edit]

With what currently does resemble our power consumption?

Posted: April 28th, 2007, 5:18pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: awareness Warming [edit]

How do the gas emissions currently evolve/move for purpose of greenhouse?

Posted: April 27th, 2007, 6:16pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: awareness [edit]

How do the gas emissions currently evolve/move for purpose of greenhouse?

Posted: April 27th, 2007, 5:16pm CEST by globalwarming awareness2007

Tags: awareness [edit]