Warm but dirty. How to slow down global warming

Epigraph: "No matter what they tell you - it's about money" (Todd's principle)

Forewarning: what does the planet Venus have to do with it, it will be clear closer to the finale.

The essence of the business idea: humanity burns hydrocarbon fossil fuels (coal, oil), and saturates the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (CO2). This is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it delays infrared (thermal) rays, preventing them from scattering into space. This leads to the fact that the climate of the planet Earth becomes warmer. If these greenhouse emissions are not reduced, the glaciers will melt, the world's oceans will rise, flooding part of the continents, unbearable heat will fall on the remaining land, in short: everyone will die.

Business Process: At the international level, a number of protocols are signed that limit CO2 emissions to certain quotas and reduction commitments. Those entities that have excess allowances can (WARNING!) sell these allowances to those entities that burn so much that they do not have enough CO2 allowances. And an international fund is being created to finance the fight against CO2 on our planet. In particular (ATTENTION!) Allocating grants to scientists - for the relevant science.
(See Kyoto Protocol 1997 and Paris Protocol 2015).
In fact, this business process started in the 2000s.

Issue price: Al Gore (Vice President of the United States in 1993 - 2001, central figure in the fight against CO2, laureate Nobel Prize 2007 world for this fight) increased his personal fortune from $2 million to about $100 million.
The volume of trade in CO2-quotas by 2010 reached 120 billion dollars, and continues to grow vigorously. This is what it really means to make money out of thin air!

What does science say? Those scientists who receive grants for the fight against CO2, of course, say that it is CO2 that causes the greenhouse effect, and this is a threat to humanity. Those scientists who do not count on these grants are talking about a pseudoscientific scam.

Andrey Kapitsa and Jonathan Moldavanov: “Global warming and ozone holes are scientific myths”:
"For many years ex-president The US Academy of Sciences Frederick Seitz (Seitz) drew attention to the fact that all theories of global warming and ozone holes are far-fetched and do not correspond to reality, that these are anti-scientific theories. 17,000 American scientists signed the petition. They agree with Seitz and believe that the agreement* and the trends behind it are a real threat to humanity and a heavy blow to its future.
*Note: A.P. Kapitsa is referring to the 1997 Kyoto climate agreement.

Alexander Gorodnitsky "The end of the myth of global warming":
“As a result of a well-organized international political campaign, the leading countries of the world signed the Kyoto Protocol, calling for the reduction of emissions into the atmosphere of the so-called "greenhouse gases", and above all the main one - carbon dioxide. This protocol is based on the erroneous assumption that these gases allegedly lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect and a significant warming of the Earth's climate.

Both of these materials, and a host of other materials on climate skepticism (the movement of scientists to refute the doctrine of greenhouse global warming) are available on the Internet, and you can read the detailed arguments.

And we will try to understand objectively the case of climate change and the man-made factor - greenhouse gases (in particular, carbon dioxide - CO2, around which the Kyoto Protocol machine revolves). Buddhas don't burn pots - we can do it.

Let's start with a simple question: is there a greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere, and what gases cause it?
Answer: the greenhouse effect exist. It is associated with the property of certain gases, in particular: water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) to absorb infrared (thermal) radiation emanating from the relatively warm surface of the planet, preventing it from dissipating into relatively cold space.
What greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere in significant quantities?
The answer is H2O (about 1 percent) and CO2 (about 0.04 percent).
So: there is 25 times more water vapor than carbon dioxide.
And no one argues that the greenhouse effect is created mainly by water vapor.
Why then did not H2O, but CO2 become the greenhouse hero of the Kyoto Protocol?

There is no clear physical explanation for this political phenomenon.
But there is a clear economic explanation.
An attempt to declare global struggle with water vapor emissions would look like idiocy, and even propaganda on TV would not help here. It is known that about a cubic kilometer of water per minute evaporates from the surface of the world's oceans. This is a billion tons (gigaton). This is how 2.26*10^12 MJ (mega-joules) of energy is transferred in the form of heat of evaporation: 1000 times more than the energy consumption of the entire human civilization in the same minute. An attempt by the climate shop at the UN to regulate H2O emissions would be commented on by Aesop's famous phrase: "Drink the sea, Xanthus." A global economic H2O quota scam would not work.

Another thing is the regulation of CO2 emissions. The carbon cycle in nature is not as widely covered in textbooks and popular science literature as the water cycle. And therefore, it is possible to feed pseudoscientific reasoning to the mass audience. Something like this:
- Industry burns coal and hydrocarbon fossil fuels, and emits combustion products into the atmosphere - already 30 billion tons of CO2 per year.
- Due to these emissions, the CO2 concentration increased from 0.02 to 0.04 percent.
- It increased the greenhouse effect. As a result average temperature The Earth has grown by 0.74 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century (i.e. since the beginning of the intensive burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas).
- If CO2 emissions (carbon emissions) are not reduced, temperatures could rise by about 6 degrees by the end of the 21st century.
- Next - see thrillers about the thermal apocalypse with floods and fires.

Let's look at this and pose the question: before our civilization - why did global warmings occur after the ice ages, which happened on planet Earth with some regularity over a billion years? And a more local question: why did small warmings occur after small glaciations in the already historical period, but before the machine civilization. Good famous example: In the 10th century, the Vikings, traveling from Iceland to the west, discovered Greenland and Newfoundland. These were areas with a warm temperate climate, and Newfoundland even grew grapes. At present, both there and there are tundra and glaciers. But the 10th century fell on warming (historians call it the "medieval climatic optimum"). And the warming has done without industrial emissions of CO2.

The conclusion is obvious, but the question of the role of CO2 requires additional remarks. Although all prehistoric warmings happened without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 then increased. This is evidenced by geological samples. And there is a well-founded scientific theory to this, according to which the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a cause, but a consequence of warming (we will return to the mechanism of this growth a little later). The warming itself is due to completely different factors.

There is a powerful regular factor: the flow of radiant energy from the Sun. It, according to a complex periodic law, depends on:
1) Solar activity (long-term fluctuations in the intensity of the glow), of which the Gleisberg, Suess, and Hallstat cycles can be named (the duration of which, respectively: about 100, about 200, and about 2300 years).
2) Orbital position of the Earth - periodic changes in the distance between the Sun and the Earth, and changes in the angles of illumination due to Lunar-Solar precession (Milankovitch cycles with periods of 10 thousand years, 26 thousand years, and 93 thousand years).

There are irregular factors - eruptions of super-volcanoes and the fall of large asteroids. They cause emissions of fine dust, which remain in the atmosphere for a long time. upper layers atmosphere and shield sunlight. This mechanism worked on a relatively small time scale in 1816 (the so-called year without summer) after the eruption of Tambor. Calculations of the possible depth of cooling are known from the so-called. "nuclear winter models".

These factors really determine the climate of the Earth, in particular, the average temperature. Now let's look at what happens to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here you can resort to an experiment on a simple physical model. We will need:
1) Ice bucket (or refrigerator).
2) Bucket with hot water(moderately hot, without extreme).
3) Two bottles of sparkling water (you can Borj, Fanta, Cola, and even champagne).
We put the first bottle in the cold, and the second in heat.
I'm waiting for an hour.
Next - open both bottles and visually and evaluate the difference.
CO2 bubbles will lazily come out of the first bottle, and a foam fountain is likely to come out of the second.
Explanation: The solubility of a gas (including CO2) is inversely proportional to temperature.

The oceans are a kind of bottle filled with 1.35 billion cubic kilometers of mineralized water (or, in mass units: 1.35 billion gigatonnes). A number of gases are dissolved in water.
In particular, the mass of CO2 dissolved in the ocean exceeds 100,000 gigatons.
The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 2 thousand gigatons (50 - 60 times less than in the ocean).
During periods of constant average temperature on the planet, an equilibrium is established between atmospheric CO2 and CO2 dissolved in the ocean.
With global cooling, the equilibrium shifts towards dissolved CO2.
With global warming, the equilibrium shifts towards atmospheric CO2.

So: the currently observed increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is a consequence (and not a cause) of global warming. We can say that this addition of CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect, creating a secondary factor in global warming. But such a contribution is very insignificant compared to the primary factor (an increase in the flux of radiant energy from the Sun). If we discuss the secondary factor of the greenhouse effect, then it is necessary to consider the contribution not of CO2, but of H2O - the predominant greenhouse gas (see above). As the temperature rises, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere increases, which means it traps a large proportion of thermal radiation from the Earth's surface. The "water" greenhouse process has a downside, but more on that later.

Now let's return to CO2 and estimate the scale of the technogenic (anthropogenic) factor in the circulation of this gas.
So: there are now 2,000 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, and this amount makes full cycle in about 4 years. 500 gigatonnes of CO2 per year enters the atmosphere through the processes of release from the ocean, and the processes of decomposition of organic matter in the biosphere. The same amount - 500 gigatonnes of CO2 per year is bound in the process of photosynthesis.
Industry (as mentioned) emits 30 gigatonnes of CO2 per year into the atmosphere.
When these 30 gigatons are quoted after the 500 gigaton biological cycle, such a "contribution" anthropogenic factor into carbon emissions” no longer looks impressive.
However, as stated above, CO2 is not the cause of global warming anyway.

Like this: it's kind of boring. The greenhouse topic of CO2 has shrunk, and there is no intrigue.
Let's have fun. Imagine that humanity will uncontrollably burn carbon and hydrocarbon fuels, and quickly burn all of its fossil reserves. And - against the background of global warming caused by the primary (solar) factor. If you add fuel to the fire in this way, what will happen to the climate. Is it possible to know the result without delving deeply into numerical climate models?

It turns out that it is possible, because there was a period in the history of the Earth when almost all of the CO2 that is now accumulated in fossil fuels was in the atmosphere. Welcome to the Carboniferous period of the Paleozoic era. Then, about 330 million years ago, after a long ice age, global warming set in. The average temperature of the Earth has risen to 20 Celsius (5 degrees warmer than today). As in the soda bottle experiment, CO2 began to flow from the ocean into the atmosphere, and its concentration increased from 0.02 percent to 0.4 percent (10 times higher than today). Due to increased evaporation from the surface of the oceans, the concentration of "greenhouse" H2O in the atmosphere has increased. The tropical climate band has expanded. Plants, due to high temperature and humidity, and high concentration of CO2, quickly produced biomass through photosynthesis. This is how CO2 was utilized, which then, during geological processes, turned from biomass into coal, oil and natural gas. By the way: many classes of plants and animals (in particular, terrestrial ones) that exist now developed precisely then. In general: a celebration of life 30 million years long or so. No global flood or thermal apocalypse. Then, due to a change in the solar factor, a new glaciation came.

But what if the solar factor hadn't changed at the end of the Carboniferous? Maybe, in this case, the greenhouse effect from H2O and CO2 would still lead to a climate catastrophe?
Answer: no. 30 million years is more than enough for a catastrophe to occur, if it were even possible under the greenhouse scenario. Note: that the apologists for the idea of ​​the Kyoto Protocol threaten a catastrophe by the end of the 21st century (!). What millions of years?
The impossibility of such a disaster scenario is associated with the previously noted feature of the "water" greenhouse process. It has a downside. Although, in the lower atmosphere, H2O acts as a greenhouse gas, contributing to warming, in the upper atmosphere (in particular, in the very cold stratosphere), its role is changing. Water vapor forms clouds of small ice crystals with high light reflection. These clouds shield sunlight even more effectively than microparticles of volcanic ash (see the Tambora eruption, "a year without a sun"). With a high concentration of H2O in the lower layers of the atmosphere, there is a transfer to the upper layers, and the area of ​​such clouds - screens that reduce the light flux to the surface - increases. A kind of natural climate control with negative feedback, characteristic of our planet.

In general: even if humanity, against the backdrop of warming, quickly burns all available fossil fuel reserves, and the CO2 content in the atmosphere rises to the late Paleozoic level, this will still not lead to a catastrophe. So the theory on which the Kyoto Protocol is based is pseudoscientific in every way.

Also, this protocol seems to rely on fake measurement data. So:
"Climategate" is a hacker discovery by some guys who hacked into the server of the Climate Research Center of the University of East Anglia, and discovered the most interesting correspondence of the director of the "Climatic Research Unit", CRU. She showed that the justifications for the Kyoto Protocol included falsifications about the climate for about 20 years.
Here it would be possible to put the word END and a period. But then there will be an unsolved mystery: where did the theoretical part of this pseudoscientific scam come from? Where did the "greenhouse" terminology come from, and the mathematical model that describes the rise in temperature due to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere? Let's try to figure this out.

Let's go back 50 years to the "golden decades of astronautics".
When in 1967 the unmanned spacecraft Mariner 5 explored the atmosphere of Venus, scientists were surprised by its very high temperature and pressure.
Venus in the sense of planetology is the sister of the Earth (close size, close mass), but its orbit is a quarter closer to the Sun.
This means that Venus receives twice as much heat from the Sun.
If we assume that Venus is in thermal equilibrium, then it should radiate as much heat into space as it receives from the Sun. The thermal radiation of the body (and in particular - the planet) is proportional to absolute temperature in the fourth degree.
Based on this, one could roughly estimate the temperature on Venus at 343 degrees Kelvin, or 70 Celsius (55 degrees higher than the average on Earth).
But Mariner 5 found a temperature of 460 Celsius and a pressure of 90 atmospheres on Venus.
A theory soon arose to explain how this happened. 4 billion years ago, Venus was not particularly different from the Earth of the same time (Archaean era), but the temperature on Venus was about 55 degrees warmer. This difference was enough that the oceans did not form in a certain period. geological history, and all the CO2 contained in the primary atmosphere remained in it. Under these conditions, the greenhouse effect worked, which catastrophically heated the surface of Venus.
CO2 - carbon dioxide, the main product during the combustion of any mineral fuel, turned out to be the culprit in turning Venus into a red-hot hell!

And, after the mathematical interpretation of the results of the Mariner-5 flight, in 1975 the journal Science published an article by Wallace Broeker “Climate Change: Are we on the verge of a sharp global warming?”, In which, for the first time, in the spirit of alarmism, a dangerous anthropogenic impact on the climate of our planet.
A great horror story to scare public opinion and build a scam on greenhouse gas emissions trading, fundraising, etc. Grants are important - to get "confirmation on behalf of science." This is how it works, and will probably work for a long time to come. Public opinion is so intimidated that the US administration's recent rejection of the Paris Protocol has sparked a storm of mass protests, demonstrations, rallies, pickets, and media thrillers.

Of course, such an outraged public did not delve into the calculations, and did not notice that the propagandists of the fight against the greenhouse effect, apply a mathematical model built not for the Earth (on which we live), but for Venus, (which receives twice as much solar heat and light, than the Earth, and on which a water ocean has not formed, which makes a catastrophic greenhouse effect possible).

This pseudoscientific-detective story with a model substitution of the Earth - Venus could seem like an absurd conspiracy theory. But, scientific popularizers of the fight against the greenhouse effect on Earth, themselves indicate as the strongest argument - the well-known and impressive result of the greenhouse effect on Venus.

…Reading the Daily Mail, January 10, 2018
Or a presentation in Russian - from the network source Liga.net for January 11, 2018
Renowned scientist Stephen Hawking has warned that the Earth will become "hot as hell" as a result of global warming. It is reported by the Daily Mail.
The theoretical physicist suggested that the Earth will become like Venus: the average temperature on our planet will reach 460 degrees Celsius, if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced. According to NASA experts, 4 billion years ago, Venus, like the Earth, had an atmosphere, but due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, the atmosphere of the planet "burned out".
"The next time you meet someone who denies climate change, tell them to go to Venus. I'll pay the fare," Hawking concluded.

I would like to invite some scientists (and scientific publicists) to make a return journey: from an imaginary Venus to a real Earth. By the way, the ride is free.
It remains to make two final remarks.

1. Adherents of the Kyoto Protocol themselves do not believe in their CO2-greenhouse theory.
If they really believed in the power of the greenhouse demon named CO2, then they would obviously urge not to let this dangerous creature out of the bowels of the Earth at all.
- Seal the mouths of oil and gas wells.
- Concrete broken shale layers.
- Close all coal mines and peat quarries.
- And globally switch to nuclear energy, which does not emit CO2.
By the way, quite a realistic project.
At the end of the 20th century, the prosperous French economy was 80 percent self-sufficient in energy from nuclear power plants ...
... But, we do not hear and do not see calls "Long live the peaceful atom" from the commissions working on the Kyoto-Paris theme of combating the greenhouse effect.
On the contrary, international environmental organizations are calling for the curtailment of nuclear energy. It's illogical, on the one hand. And on the other hand, this means that the matter is not in the CO2 threat (which is not), but in the monetary and stock effect (which is).
And, it is likely that the sponsors of the anti-CO2 project, as well as the sponsors of the anti-nuclear project, are those super-corporations that extract hydrocarbon fuels.

2. Of course, on Earth there are man-made ecological problems. That this particular CO2 problem is fictional does not change the real problems. For example:
- Pollution of the oceans with oil products and plastic waste.
- Local pollution of the regions of extraction of fossil raw materials.
- Destruction of local ecosystems during logging and soil cultivation.
- Environmentally hazardous methods of mass production of seafood.
…Etc.
But, apparently, at the High International Level it is more profitable to deal with fictitious problems based on pseudoscientific theories and false data. So it goes…

Mankind, oddly enough, can not only destroy the planet, but also protect it. Global warming is too big a problem to tackle alone, but with the help of "green" actions carried out by you personally, you can make a small difference, but also inspire others to do the same. And this article will tell you how to deal with global warming on a personal level.

Making political decisions

Changing consumer habits

1. 
   

   Eat vegetarian or vegan food. Livestock is a source of greenhouse gases, surpassing in this sense all the transport of the planet. Here, however, not only livestock is involved, but the whole process of meat production - from the creation of fertilizers, to growing grain and transporting it to feeders, and so on. With what more people those who follow a vegetarian diet, the less water is wasted in the agricultural sector and the more favorable the situation in terms of biodiversity becomes.

   • If you eat meat, eat locally grown meat that is not imported from far away.
   • Eat meat and vegetables grown on small farms, not those produced in large factories that use environmentally destructive practices.
2. 
   

   Reuse things more often. It is worthwhile to carefully approach the issue of recycling and processing. Dispose of glass, plastic, paper, cardboard and other recyclable waste in designated trash bins. Convince your neighbors and friends to do the same (especially since there are those who don't).

   • Cloth bags are a great alternative to paper or plastic bags when you go shopping.
   • Food waste It makes sense to compost rather than throw it in the trash.
3. 
   

   Use refill. Instead of buying a new bottle of water, fill up an empty one instead. So it’s good for the environment, and it’s good for your wallet.

4. 
   

   Buy products with a minimum of packaging. From this, you will not only produce less waste, but also reduce emissions of harmful substances into the atmosphere, not to mention significant savings. And if it seems to you that some product is packaged like an onion for nothing, then it makes sense to call the manufacturing company and express your opinion and offer your options.

5. 
   

   Waste less paper. Before you click on the “print” button, think carefully - is it worth it? And at the bottom of their emails put signatures that remind recipients of this as well.

   • Use drafts! And on them you can make shopping lists, notes, write down phone numbers and so on. Throw away only the paper on which it is simply impossible to write.
   • If you print something, then print on sheets of recycled paper. Remember, each ream of paper is an emission of harmful substances into the atmosphere.
6. 
   

   Buy local food. The meaning is simple - the closer to bring food, the less energy and fuel is spent and the less harm to the environment. But food accounts for almost half of all carbon dioxide, one way or another emitted into the atmosphere due to the average family.

   • If you also inspire your neighbors, then sooner or later your demand will determine the supply on the market and change the situation for the better!
   • Buy groceries at markets or small private shops with local suppliers. Better there than in the big ones chain stores.
   • Buy goods in small local shops, and not in supermarkets.
   • Would you like a snack? Go to a local restaurant or cafe, not to chain restaurants.
7. 
   

   Track how much carbon is being produced because of you. This can be done using a special calculator that calculates how much your lifestyle costs the environment. This will add an element of visibility to your fight against global warming.

   • On the Internet you can find calculators adapted for people living in a particular country.
   • Some products have a special logo - “Carbon counted” - which says that during the production of this product, the environment was at least remembered. As a rule, next to the logo is a number indicating how much carbon production has cost nature. Buy those products that have this number as low as possible. Form the right demand, manage the market!

Reduce your energy consumption

We use green transport

• Plant trees. Leaves, remember, absorb carbon dioxide. There are even organizations that help people in this regard.
• Try to consume less, save more and spend less. Rent videos and games, don't buy them, or at least use them. By analogy - with books, since no one has closed libraries yet.
• Responsibly treat the consumption of electricity in your office. In many organizations, air conditioners and computers are left on overnight. Discuss this issue with competent comrades.
• Grow fast growing plants. Let's say bamboo - it not only grows fast, but also produces a third more oxygen than oak or birch, not to mention the fact that it requires less fertilizer and attention. Make sure the plants can grow in your area. Give preference native species and don't plant anything potentially dangerous. With the same bamboo in the US, you have to be careful, by the way.
• Try to use more tap water than bottled water. This will reduce the energy required for bottling and transporting water.

Global Temperature Change 1850−2016

On April 22, 2016, the participants of the Climate Conference in Paris signed the Paris Agreement, which regulates measures to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 2020. To date, the Paris Agreement is humanity's main hope to stop warming before we reach the "point of no return" in the form of an irreversible process that supports itself (warming will cause glaciers to melt and thaw permafrost, which will increase the amount of CO 2 emissions, increase the greenhouse effect, further warming will occur, and so on).

The goal of the agreement is to keep the global average temperature rise below 2°C and "make efforts" to limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C (see spiral chart). To this end, the parties to the agreement agreed to start reducing carbon dioxide emissions after reaching the peak of CO 2 emissions “as soon as possible”.

Unfortunately, not everything is so simple. Reducing CO 2 emissions may not be enough to stop the warming of the Earth. This topic is covered in a report on "negative emissions" technologies, compiled by scientists from more than 20 countries that are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of European Academies. By "negative emissions" is meant the purification of the atmosphere from greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

In their report, the academicians once again say well-known things: at the moment, humanity is not making enough efforts to stop global warming. We are not even close to a trajectory that will limit the heating of the atmosphere to 2 °C.

To make matters worse, scientists have recently been discussing the theory that even reducing CO2 emissions will not be enough to stop the warming spiral. Climatologists believe that we have already driven ourselves into a rather difficult position - there is little time left. And now, in order to fit into the 2 ° C framework, it will be necessary not only to reduce emissions, but also to actively remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, otherwise the process of heating the planet will become irreversible.

This poses a difficult question for humanity: will we be able to develop and scale technologies to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere in enough short term until irreversible heating has begun? The report looks at seven ways to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere:

• Reforestation
• Rational tillage to increase the carbon content there
• Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
• Advanced weathering (when silicates or carbonates dissolve in rainwater, CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere)
• Direct Air Capture and Carbon Storage (DACCS)
• Ocean fertilization (plankton and other plants capture CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into organic matter)
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS)

To reach the trajectory of limiting heating to within 2 °C, it is necessary to remove at least 11 billion tons of CO 2 from the atmosphere annually by 2050 to compensate for emissions. Scientists believe that in practice such indicators will be difficult to achieve. different reasons. For example, reforestation in sufficient quantities to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will require the planting of new forests from 320 million to 970 million hectares, which is 20-60% of the arable land of human civilization. However, forests take decades to grow, there is a risk of re-emission of CO 2 through fires and other problems. There are successful examples of restoration: for example, China has invested more than $100 billion in reforestation on an area of ​​434,000 km². But these are isolated examples.

Experts believe that only some of these options can be scaled up and remove a maximum of 3-4 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But this is a theoretical possibility. In reality, none of these options are currently being promoted on a global scale and are not developing at a sufficient pace. It would seem that reforestation and carbon storage in the soil seem to be the most simple options. But in fact, humanity is currently doing just the opposite: cutting down forests and contributing to soil degradation. Because of this, carbon dioxide emissions only increase, not decrease.

Scientists believe that to prevent further global warming, it will be necessary not only to reduce CO 2 emissions, but also to apply the entire arsenal of technologies that are available to mankind.

How to stop global warming, which threatens earthlings with serious cataclysms? They will try to agree on this at the UN World Climate Conference that is opening in Paris. The leaders of many countries will take part in it, and the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin is also expected. This forum is already called historical. It should become a milestone in the development of our civilization.

And, it would seem, we are talking about just one figure, but it can largely decide the fate of mankind. If the average rise in temperature on Earth for several decades exceeds +2 degrees Celsius, then we are all in danger of disaster. This is the verdict of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In their scenarios - melting ice, drought, epidemics of dangerous diseases. And most importantly - the flooding of ocean coasts, and above all, many largest cities the world, such as Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, St. Petersburg, Buenos Aires, etc.

Scientists estimate that we have been assigned to emit 3,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere throughout history. We have already "spent" about 2,000 billion, and 1,000 billion remain. With current emissions of 50 billion tons per year, earthlings have only 20 years to stop warming.

In a word, Ch's time is approaching. And we must take action now. Mankind needs to unite in front of the climate threat, intelligently manage life on the planet. But for this, earthlings must agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050. The goals are quite noble. But the devil is in the details. For example, who will pay for a favorable climate? But the sums are huge. For example, when the US did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it estimated the required investments at trillions of dollars. Now the price for a favorable climate is not called, but it is obvious to everyone that it will be huge money.

By the way, not only the United States, but also a number of countries, the main polluters of the atmosphere, have not signed the Kyoto Protocol. The attempt to solve climate problems at the UN conference in Copenhagen in 2009 also ended in failure. And here in Paris a new attempt will be made. The leaders of 195 countries who will gather in the capital of France must take their obligations to reduce emissions. Experts are already saying that it will be very difficult to reach an agreement. After all, each country has its own problems and interests.

But, on the other hand, it is indicative that already before the start of the forum a number of leading countries announced such intentions. For example, the United States promises to reduce emissions by 26-28 percent by 2025 compared to 2005. For the first time, China has announced a specific date when it will start cutting greenhouse gas emissions - 2030. In addition, he intends to increase the share of "green energy" to 20 percent and significantly reduce the consumption of coal - the main source of harmful emissions. And Europe is already fighting emissions not in words, but in deeds: between 1994 and 2014, they decreased by 23 percent. By 2050, Europe promises a halving, and the clear leader, France, is aiming for 4 times.

What contribution can Russia make to the fight against global warming? By the way, in our country, climate change is happening more than in other countries. Separate regions - and this is the entire Arctic, areas of mountain ranges, the entire Far East- very, very vulnerable to the processes associated with global warming.

Now Russia accounts for only 4 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, we are in 5th place after China, the USA, India, the EU. Our country, in accordance with the decree of President Vladimir Putin, has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to no more than 75 percent of the 1990 level. How to fulfill these obligations? Sergey Donskoy, head of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia, spoke about this at the International Conference "Global Climate Challenge: Dialogue between the State, Society and Business" that has just ended in Moscow.

First of all, the legislative base has been changed in the country,” he said. - For example, a law on the rationing system was adopted negative impact on the environment based on the principles of the best available technologies. By 2030, this will ensure a more than 2-fold reduction in harmful emissions from stationary sources per unit of GDP. There will be 3 times fewer cities with high and very high level air pollution.

According to Donskoy, in the first decade of this century, Russia actually became the world leader in terms of the rate of decline in the energy intensity of GDP - it fell by 42 percent. The decisive role was played by the growth in the share of natural gas in the electric power industry and its replacement with coal, the most "dirty" fuel. In general, over the period 1990-2011, the reduction in emissions in Russia turned out to be more than the total contribution of greenhouse gases of all developed countries- Members of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. According to Bloomberg, Russia has taken the 2nd place in the world in terms of the use of investment mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol.

But the country sets new ambitious goals: to reduce the specific energy intensity of GDP by 25 percent by 2025, the electric intensity by 12 percent, and the annual savings due to energy saving by 2035 should be about 200 million tons of standard fuel. According to Sergey Donskoy, Russia is ready to discuss a fundamental issue for reducing emissions - the introduction of a carbon price. The Minister emphasized that at the conference in Paris, all countries, without exception, should take obligations to reduce emissions, clearly fixing this in the new climate agreement. Russia not only assumes such an obligation, but also insists that its interests be taken into account. The fact is that our country accounts for more than 70 percent of boreal forests and about 25 percent of the world's forest resources that absorb greenhouse gases.

We will insist that the contribution of our forests is taken into account on the same principles that apply today for tropical forests, - says Sergey Donskoy. - Our forests are of global importance for climate change mitigation, protection water resources, prevent soil erosion and preserve biodiversity on the planet.

Meanwhile

The Earth needs to prepare for a 30-year cooling cycle, said the chairman of the Tyumen scientific center SB RAS Academician Vladimir Melnikov. He predicts that the average temperature on the planet will fall by 1.5-2 degrees Celsius. American scientists agree with this opinion. True, they believe that it is happening against the backdrop of global warming. That is, it will continue.

For the second year in a row, Russian weather forecasters predict severe winters. According to the head of Roshydromet, Alexander Frolov, the main cold fronts will pass over the Urals and southern Siberia. "There will be periods of prolonged cooling and periods of thaw," he said.

Infographics: WG / Leonid Kuleshov / Yuri Medvedev

In atmosphere?

- Yes. After all, a significant part of this problem lies in the field of energy, and everyone needs energy: light, heat, transport, the production of any product requires energy, and we get energy in the process of burning fossil fuels, as a result of which greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere.

— Let's start with housing: people are not ready to give up comfort, they want to live in warm and bright houses, is it possible to somehow save energy?

Most of the energy in homes is spent on heating and hot water. Therefore, one of the simplest actions is to insulate windows, doors, make sure that the batteries work well and are not clogged. In old houses, you can see batteries that are located under the windowsills in recesses in the wall - so that behind the battery - thin wall through which most of heat escapes. This problem can be solved by sticking a layer of material on the wall behind the battery, which consists of insulation and foil. This material is simple, cheap, and easy to find in stores.

For savings hot water you can take a shower instead of a bath. You need 200 liters of water for a bath, 40-50 for a shower, 60 for the biggest shower lovers, but certainly not 200. There are also water-saving shower heads. In our country they are known as massage and can give a thin and strong jet of water. At the same time, the shower feels strong, and less water is wasted.

use washing machine and dishwashers more economical than rinsing clothes or washing dishes under running water. Although, of course, if you, like an Englishman, plugged the sink with a cork, filled it with mild soapy water, washed the dishes, and only then poured clean water to rinse the dishes, then you will save more resources than a dishwasher. In any case, you must also monitor the consumption of detergents so as not to contaminate once again wastewater and with them rivers and seas.

One of the most famous ways to save electricity is to use energy saving light bulbs…

- Yes, but you need to take into account that now fluorescent energy-saving lamps have been given up, because they contain poisonous, and it was not possible to arrange their disposal. Therefore, all over the world are switching to the use LED lamps. So far, they are still expensive, but they consume almost 10 times less energy and last about 20 times longer than incandescent lamps, so they quickly pay for themselves.

To save energy, sensors are also very effective, which react to movement and turn on the light only when it is needed. They can be installed on stairs or in corridors. I know one five-story building where such sensors were installed on the stairs, and it turned out that the light was needed there for only 26 minutes, not 24 hours a day. But here we are no longer talking about a separate apartment, but about a common space in an apartment building.

— Are there many emissions into the atmosphere from transport and can they be somehow reduced?

- Transport consumes 4/5 of the world's oil reserves and in large cities gives 80% of air pollution, respectively, and it affects the climate in a decisive way. But here the choice is very simple: public transport instead of a car. And if you need to go on vacation, but not very far, then it is better to choose a train instead of a plane, it will be much more environmentally friendly. The European Union even has a rule for business trips: for a distance of less than 400 kilometers, the plane is not paid - only the train. Well, for very short distances, it is best to choose a bicycle.

Another way people rarely think about reducing our impact on the climate is through our purchases. When we select products in a store, we tend not to pay attention to how far the product has been manufactured. If we choose oil from New Zealand, we must take into account that it has traveled 17 thousand kilometers. How much fuel was spent on the delivery of this oil, how much energy was spent on storing it in the refrigerator along the way! Extra packaging is also an extra waste of energy. For example, if instead of just a cucumber, buying a cucumber in polyethylene or on a pallet and in polyethylene, then this is also a waste of resources, which means an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

The fact that the climate is changing and this is due to the burning of fossil fuels is no longer in doubt among scientists. The consequences of global warming, if it cannot be slowed down, could be