I will have a follow up to this post first thing Monday . . . Thanks all!

……Anthrogenic CO2 I believe is about 7 gigatons as carbon.

The problem with CO2 in the atmosphere is that you need an atmospheric solution similar to the size of the problem. As diffuse as the CO2 is and as diffuse as the biosphere is, I do not know that you could make sizable headway if you made the whole of the Sahara green.

It simply pays to control where the concentrations exist.

CEF didn’t present their results this way, but I have converted them to percent annual reductions below a “business as usual” baseline. They presented numbers for CO2 emissions as well as for energy usage, so I’ll report numbers for CO2. The annual CO2-emission reductions below baseline ranged from 0.4% to 1.7% for the various scenarios they considered. I think it’s important to note that their “advanced” scenarios included imposition of a carbon tax of $25/tC or $50/tC, and the assumptions they used to estimate the effects of those taxes would certainly need to be examined carefully (by someone who knows more than me). The numbers presented by Roger imply an annual CO2-emission reduction below baseline of 1.8% for the next 11 years. This is close to the high number for the CEF study, so perhaps it is plausible — though it is certainly aggressive and I think a lot rests on how effective a CO2 tax would be. Roger has made it clear that he doesn’t think an effective CO2 tax (or cap & trade) is feasible politically, and he may very well be right. It is also worth noting that current CO2 emissions are actually lower than the projected emissions in the CEF study for their “moderate” scenario, and quite a bit lower than the projection for their BAU scenario (their projections started from 1997). This shows that their BAU scenario was overly high, and they state that CO2 emissions in their BAU scenario were lower than the EIA’s BAU projection. This fits with my opinion that the EIA projections have tended to be high (that is, overestimating energy usage and CO2 emissions). The big recession we have going now will undoubtedly make actual emissions quite a bit lower than the EIA projections for the next few years, but the effects might cancel out by 2020 if we’re lucky.

#22 maurmike Air capture has problems on the physical side. However, Roger’s point about how it should be prioritized according to the logic of the AGW crowd is correct and also shows the logical or practical inconsistencies that are proposed/denied by the AGW crowd. I could be wrong, perhaps Roger could weigh in on my conclusion. As someone whose profession includes such units, I can tell you, capture is not some cheap, easy deal. Oxidation units were not designed this way, and unless one uses a “pure” oxygen system, there is just too much nitrogen in the way to make it work well. Also, don’t forget that one of the major factors is that you have to keep the airstream above about 360F to prevent condensation which wreaks havoc on the materials of construction rasing an expensive proposition to an even more expensive proposition.

The long term issue is that population is increasing about 2%/year.
People want global economic growth of 4% per year or higher. (China has settled for 8%/year during this economic downturn.)

Consequently there is an underlying “demand growth” of 6%/year to 10%/year or higher.

To achieve 80% reduction in emissions over 40 years requires at least 2%/year straight line. Consequently that would require an 8%/year to 12%/year decarbonizaton with growth. Then consider that power plants typically require 8 years to construct and last for 40 years.

Furthermore, China has been installing about one GW coal fired power plant per WEEK. Who is to say that the developing world is not entitled to achieve strong economic growth?

The only way “decarbonization” will happen at a rapid pace is to make renewable energy with storage cheaper than coal fired power.

Climate change is the highly politically correct issue, but has little impact on our economy in the near future. (Other than a major economic decline due to misdirection of investment.)

Of far greater importance is the near term challenge of Peak Oil.
Peak oil indicates there is insufficient conventional oil for IPCC’s growth curves. See:
Fire or Ice? The role of peak fossil fuels in climate change scenarios
Ugo Bardi on March 6, 2009 – 12:50am in The Oil Drum: Europe

Much more critical is the decline of global exports due to production decline coupled with growing internal growth. See Khebab’s
graphoilogy

Exporting country production vs consumption Fig. 16.
The drastic consequences are for rapidly declining oil exports. See:
Forecast oil exports Fig. 17.

Heavy oil and coal exist, as does solar energy.
These can be tapped for alternative fuels.
However the critical issues are that focus is on “chicken little’s” global warming with massive funds into spending to “stimulate” the economy.

With a full war time effort focused on alternative fuels starting 20years ago, we might have been able to provide alternatives.
See Hirsch Report Robert L. Hirsch

With climate change smoke screen, we are now in serious trouble of major reduction in available liquid fuels that will cause far greater economic reduction. See:

# Hirsch, Robert L. (February 2008), “Mitigation of maximum world oil production: Shortage scenarios”, Energy Policy 36 (2): 881-889, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03014215