Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[LibertyBell]

10 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Transition from oil:

Support: 57%

Oppose: 28%

https://morningconsult.com/2020/10/23/post-debate-oil-gas-renewable-energy-poll/

The American public increasingly recognizes the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The arguments denying it or deflecting from human activities are increasingly rejected by the public. Now, the public is looking increasingly at policies aimed at addressing climate change and its growing adverse consequences.

In states like Texas, more people are now employed by the renewable industry than are employed by the fossil fuel cartels. And why not? The green energy jobs pay more, they are the fastest growing segment of the job market and they dont pollute the environment or people's health. What's not to love?

[LibertyBell]

What do you guys think of this?

https://www.digitaltrends.com/features/solar-radiation-management-geoengineering/

 

In the article it says this is relatively "cheap" and would only cost a "few" hundred million dollars (compare that to the 1 trillion dollar NYC is spending on that sea wall and beach sand buildup project.)

 

[blizzard1024]

18 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

What's not to love?

They kill birds and bats and destroy natural habitat. Do you want a bunch of wind turbines around where you live?  Peaceful countryside pristine forests and mountains now  covered in wind turbines all over. it's disgusting. And they get a free pass because they are "green" and "good" for the environment. This form of energy is the biggest threat to our birds and bats with a projected 4X increase up until 2050.  Eagles are killed by these monstrosities.  I fear the continued population declines of so many birds will be hastened by this ill conceived transition that is very inefficient.  Its the biggest threat in the coming decades by so-called environmentally conscious people. You folks have been fooled.  Somebody is going to make a LOT of money and continue to destroy the environment. Yeah what's not too love?  /sarc

[donsutherland1]

47 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

They kill birds and bats and destroy natural habitat. Do you want a bunch of wind turbines around where you live?  Peaceful countryside pristine forests and mountains now  covered in wind turbines all over. it's disgusting. And they get a free pass because they are "green" and "good" for the environment. This form of energy is the biggest threat to our birds and bats with a projected 4X increase up until 2050.  Eagles are killed by these monstrosities.  I fear the continued population declines of so many birds will be hastened by this ill conceived transition that is very inefficient.  Its the biggest threat in the coming decades by so-called environmentally conscious people. You folks have been fooled.  Somebody is going to make a LOT of money and continue to destroy the environment. Yeah what's not too love?  /sarc

The status quo approach poses a substantial risk of extinction and reduction of biodiversity.  Treating it as an immutable constant by virtue of its being the existing approach is far more hazardous to nature than working on alternatives and improving alternatives.

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/8/4211

[LibertyBell]

54 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

They kill birds and bats and destroy natural habitat. Do you want a bunch of wind turbines around where you live?  Peaceful countryside pristine forests and mountains now  covered in wind turbines all over. it's disgusting. And they get a free pass because they are "green" and "good" for the environment. This form of energy is the biggest threat to our birds and bats with a projected 4X increase up until 2050.  Eagles are killed by these monstrosities.  I fear the continued population declines of so many birds will be hastened by this ill conceived transition that is very inefficient.  Its the biggest threat in the coming decades by so-called environmentally conscious people. You folks have been fooled.  Somebody is going to make a LOT of money and continue to destroy the environment. Yeah what's not too love?  /sarc

Did you read about how computerized wind turbines can actually use motion detection and radars to stop birds from dying by temporarily and selectively turning some off as birds approach?  And I would rather them be located offshore like we are doing in NY/NJ.

 

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The status quo approach poses a substantial risk of extinction and reduction of biodiversity.  Treating it as an immutable constant by virtue of its being the existing approach is far more hazardous to nature than working on alternatives and improving alternatives.

This is not true. Explain the mechanisms that cause birds to do worse under a little warm conditions? That makes no sense. During cool and wet summers, especially in the Arctic, shorebird species have poor nesting success. the milder summers they produce a lot of young. North American was warmer 6000 to 8000 years ago especially the Arctic regions and these birds survived. The fact that this period exists suggests strongly our avifauna can survive warmer temperatures. Audubon and American Bird Conservancy and Nat Geo are looking for donations. They are disingenuous. I always take everything they say with a grain of salt. Even research in this area is poorly funded so there has to be a problem to get money. They is no way that climate change (unless it is cooling) causes any major problems for our birds. The Cardinal for instance used to be a southern bird, very rare north of Maryland. Now it is flourishing up to Canada and its population is doing very well in the south where it has warmed some.  This is all BS and an excuse. Wind power is a huge threat to our migratory bird species. Not climate change. Come on man!   to quote Joe Biden. 

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

And I would rather them be located offshore like we are doing in NY/NJ

And kills the thousands upon thousands of sea birds too and we will have no way of detecting their demise. Yeah that is going to be a disaster for our seabirds. Again the biggest threat to our birds today is wind farms. Cats, cars, tall buildings, windows, TV and radio towers, electrical lines, pesticides have been around for a while and yes they have taken their toll. So now we can add another one too, wind farms, all in the name of protecting the environment or "saving the Earth"?  Come on, Man!   This is total insanity.  How do you think we get plastics and pavement and other oil derivatives for modern life?  If we stop fossil fuels before it is times, it will lead to a dark time in human history. Unemployment, higher energy costs, (look at the craziness in Germany), which will hurt american businesses and people ultimately. whose going to pay for all this? you and I. Higher prices for everything. Less jobs too. It will be a disaster. look at the craziness in California with the brown outs? They need more fossil fuels, natural gas which burns cleaner. anyway, you guys can continue your renewable fantasy. I  hope it remains that way and doesn't come true. 

[blizzard1024]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Did you read about how computerized wind turbines can actually use motion detection and radars to stop birds from dying by temporarily and selectively turning some off as birds approach?

Do you think that energy companies are going to spend money on this?  I have heard about it but many companies are not going to use this unless it is mandated. It also has to be effective,. When they shut down the turbines they lose money. So you think they want to do this? No way. They want profit and money like all energy companies. Just because they are "green" doesn't mean they don't operate with the same business model as the oil companies. 

[LibertyBell]

19 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

And kills the thousands upon thousands of sea birds too and we will have no way of detecting their demise. Yeah that is going to be a disaster for our seabirds. Again the biggest threat to our birds today is wind farms. Cats, cars, tall buildings, windows, TV and radio towers, electrical lines, pesticides have been around for a while and yes they have taken their toll. So now we can add another one too, wind farms, all in the name of protecting the environment or "saving the Earth"?  Come on, Man!   This is total insanity.  How do you think we get plastics and pavement and other oil derivatives for modern life?  If we stop fossil fuels before it is times, it will lead to a dark time in human history. Unemployment, higher energy costs, (look at the craziness in Germany), which will hurt american businesses and people ultimately. whose going to pay for all this? you and I. Higher prices for everything. Less jobs too. It will be a disaster. look at the craziness in California with the brown outs? They need more fossil fuels, natural gas which burns cleaner. anyway, you guys can continue your renewable fantasy. I  hope it remains that way and doesn't come true. 

dont forget planes- that must also be added to this list as many are located near large bodies of water and there are lots of negative interactions betweens planes and birds.

wasnt an energy company in California found guilty of negligence and implicated in the forest fires there a few years ago?

btw you mentioned pesticides, did you read the story about thousands of barrels of DDT leaking into the Pacific found just offshore from LA?

Well as you probably know, single-use plastic is on the way out because of the litter it causes especially in landfills and the ocean.  We can now use plant-based plastics that were recently developed and which are biodegradable.

 

[blizzard1024]

57 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

dont forget planes- that must also be added to this list as many are located near large bodies of water and there are lots of negative interactions betweens planes and birds.

wasnt an energy company in California found guilty of negligence and implicated in the forest fires there a few years ago?

btw you mentioned pesticides, did you read the story about thousands of barrels of DDT leaking into the Pacific found just offshore from LA?

Well as you probably know, single-use plastic is on the way out because of the litter it causes especially in landfills and the ocean.  We can now use plant-based plastics that were recently developed and which are biodegradable.

 

Yeah and this stuff is bad too. So now let's add wind turbines into the mix for more killing....

[donsutherland1]

CNN reported:

Japan's Prime Minister, Yoshihide Suga, said the country will aim to become carbon neutral by 2050.

In his first policy speech since taking office last month, Suga told Japan's parliament Monday that his "administration will put the maximum effort to realize the green society by setting a virtuous cycle in the economy and the environment."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/26/asia/japan-emissions-target-2050-scli-intl/index.html

While a shrinking number of "hold outs" is resisting even modest moves toward decarbonization, international leaders are beginning to act on the science. The scientific debate has long ended. Now, the political debate is ending. U.S. Presidential candidate Joe Biden has called for carbon neutrality by 2050. Japan has adopted the same goal. New Zealand has committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. The European Union has also committed to this goal.

These developments suggest that the basis for a formal multilateral agreement that would be aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 now exists. Such an agreement could be a successor agreement to the Paris Climate Agreement, which was adopted in 2016.

[donsutherland1]

This is what a fundamentally corrupt Administration looks like. The New York Times reported:

The Trump administration has recently removed the chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the nation’s premier scientific agency, installed new political staff who have questioned accepted facts about climate change and imposed stricter controls on communications at the agency.

The moves threaten to stifle a major source of objective United States government information about climate change that underpins federal rules on greenhouse gas emissions and offer an indication of the direction the agency will take if President Trump wins re-election.

An early sign of the shift came last month, when Erik Noble, a former White House policy adviser who had just been appointed NOAA’s chief of staff, removed Craig McLean, the agency’s acting chief scientist.

Mr. McLean had sent some of the new political appointees a message that asked them to acknowledge the agency’s scientific integrity policy, which prohibits manipulating research or presenting ideologically driven findings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/climate/trump-election-climate-noaa.html

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/27/2020 at 9:33 AM, donsutherland1 said:

CNN reported:

Japan's Prime Minister, Yoshihide Suga, said the country will aim to become carbon neutral by 2050.

In his first policy speech since taking office last month, Suga told Japan's parliament Monday that his "administration will put the maximum effort to realize the green society by setting a virtuous cycle in the economy and the environment."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/26/asia/japan-emissions-target-2050-scli-intl/index.html

While a shrinking number of "hold outs" is resisting even modest moves toward decarbonization, international leaders are beginning to act on the science. The scientific debate has long ended. Now, the political debate is ending. U.S. Presidential candidate Joe Biden has called for carbon neutrality by 2050. Japan has adopted the same goal. New Zealand has committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. The European Union has also committed to this goal.

These developments suggest that the basis for a formal multilateral agreement that would be aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 now exists. Such an agreement could be a successor agreement to the Paris Climate Agreement, which was adopted in 2016.

is 2050 the latest any nation has committed to, Don?

 

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

is 2050 the latest any nation has committed to, Don?

 

That seems to be the emerging consensus. China has committed to 2060. The U.S. currently has not committed to any year, but that should change next year.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

That seems to be the emerging consensus. China has committed to 2060. The U.S. currently has not committed to any year, but that should change next year.

Well, as you know, we can't go from 60 to 0 on a dime so I suspect there's a consensus developing about the transition curve....is it following along the IPCC guidelines (50% by 2030, 90% by 2040 and 100% by 2050, if I remember correctly)?

 

[Typhoon Tip]

On 10/23/2020 at 11:00 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Renewable energy is becoming less expensive than natural gas.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-10-19/cheaper-renewable-power-may-drive-economic-recovery-lazard-says

Whenever I read these sort of articles ... or even sooner, merely see topical at this point  ... I cannot help but leap to the conclusion .. it's all academic really - the truth is... en masse humanity took the easy greedy road.  yup - whether it was easier generations ago when the Industrial Revolution took place, or, immoral, ...it was some variation between either end that got us to this predicament of:

~ 1/2 of population aware of the doom, in a struggle against ...

~ 1/2 not aware/disrespectful of the science, continuing to be assholes, and thus accelerating said doom 

~ some small remainder not in the ratio unguilty by disconnection from technological affairs and/or doing anything at all - but not enough - to stop it.

Thermodynamics were never even scratched for what can be technologically evolved to manipulate those Natural laws of the Universe ...to benefit all, while not harm the ability for all to exist. 

Everything anyone has said after that fact is a deviation from that truth.  

If a booming force came down from the heavens and voiced that from this point forward,  any other attempt to manipulate energy in or from the environment, other than what benefits both the individual and World, COMEBIND, will results in immediate loss of one testacle per self-concentric act - you'd be amazed how fast Humanity would halt all actions until such time as we remove greed and money and self satisfaction from any debate.  Fact of the matter is, the slow moving 'invisible' specter of the the doom wave is enabling the denial of truth.  Nothing else ... period. 

But, sometimes my realism gets a bit extreme - lol.  It's true though ... It's possible to turn the lights on over humanity with 0 pollution - yes it is... It is not mathematically impossible to simplify the equation of existence to where success in doing so does/acts/achieves a 'symbiosis' with one's environment.  

We don't.      ... we don't. 

Anything else, is a perversion based on immorality at one end, and short-sightedness do to traditionalism at the other... All of it - end of discussion.  

Even the seemingly virtuous act of saying, 'can we at last engage in a discussion' - is belaying and evasive.  Because there is nothing else to discuss. This is incontrovertible -   Sometimes there really is a right, and there is a wrong.  There is no gray area in consuming .. torpedoing one's ability to survive - that's it.  But Humanity's long storied, tragic history, proves that it takes death in throngs to get people to get along - ...this will be no different.  

[LibertyBell]

Saw a great series on Nature last night about expanding forests to take carbon out of the atmosphere.  Bhutan is the world's first carbon negative nation.  We need to expand forests to get them to cover 60% of the world's land surface and that means a few trillion more trees.  That will greatly help our efforts to get carbon dioxide levels lower and improve biodiversity.

 

[Bhs1975]

Saw a great series on Nature last night about expanding forests to take carbon out of the atmosphere.  Bhutan is the world's first carbon negative nation.  We need to expand forests to get them to cover 60% of the world's land surface and that means a few trillion more trees.  That will greatly help our efforts to get carbon dioxide levels lower and improve biodiversity.
 

And it would help with cooling to with the shade.


.

[etudiant]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Saw a great series on Nature last night about expanding forests to take carbon out of the atmosphere.  Bhutan is the world's first carbon negative nation.  We need to expand forests to get them to cover 60% of the world's land surface and that means a few trillion more trees.  That will greatly help our efforts to get carbon dioxide levels lower and improve biodiversity.

 

Forest fires are an issue.

In general, all the reforestation schemes that I've seen have been execrable, spindling pulpwood conifers planted way too close together, obviously worthless as ecosystems or even habitats.

Here as everywhere else, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Ensuring a proper execution of the 'green' design requires hard headed management, something in very short supply.

[LibertyBell]

12 hours ago, etudiant said:

Forest fires are an issue.

In general, all the reforestation schemes that I've seen have been execrable, spindling pulpwood conifers planted way too close together, obviously worthless as ecosystems or even habitats.

Here as everywhere else, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Ensuring a proper execution of the 'green' design requires hard headed management, something in very short supply.

Looks like the best way may be to preserve the forests we have.

[etudiant]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Looks like the best way may be to preserve the forests we have.

Tell that to the people pelletizing the old forests of Eastern Europe to feed the boilers of the 'green renewable fuel' electric power plants.

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, etudiant said:

Tell that to the people pelletizing the old forests of Eastern Europe to feed the boilers of the 'green renewable fuel' electric power plants.

they're destroying the forests there?  In the Age of Nature series they were showing how Bhutan became the first carbon negative nation on the planet by preserving their forests and building dams by hand to stop flooding from ice melt.

 

[etudiant]

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

they're destroying the forests there?  In the Age of Nature series they were showing how Bhutan became the first carbon negative nation on the planet by preserving their forests and building dams by hand to stop flooding from ice melt.

 

Sadly very much true, for instance some of the best old growth forests in Poland, notably the Białowieża Forest, have been decimated. An outbreak of bark beetles provided the pretext for wholesale logging. The pellets were sold to the UK subsidized 'green power' stations. Similar deals were implemented elsewhere along the Baltic. 

[ThomasRodriguez]

The weather has become increasingly unpredictable and violent, look at the storms battering constantly on the east coast. My brother lives in New Orleans, and he is using my climacell account to keep an eye out for the next one. And to think, people are denying climate change! 

[LibertyBell]

New PBS series beginning next Monday

 

https://www.pbs.org/show/power-trip-story-energy/

[EasternLI]

Published: 12 November 2020
An earth system model shows self-sustained melting of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z

In this paper we report that in the ESCIMO climate model the world is already past a point-of-no-return for global warming. In ESCIMO we observe self-sustained melting of the permafrost for hundreds of years, even if global society stops all emissions of man-made GHGs immediately.

[rclab]

36 minutes ago, EasternLI said:

Published: 12 November 2020
An earth system model shows self-sustained melting of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z

In this paper we report that in the ESCIMO climate model the world is already past a point-of-no-return for global warming. In ESCIMO we observe self-sustained melting of the permafrost for hundreds of years, even if global society stops all emissions of man-made GHGs immediately.

Thankyou ELI. I read it. I understood it as best I could. To me it boils down to damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Unfortunately the Least Common Denominator is damned. As always.....

[LibertyBell]

Good luck to whomever still exists on this planet in 2100 and thereafter.  I'm most certainly glad that I wont be here and that I decided to not have any children, I wouldn't wish this kind of hell on my worst enemy.

https://www.inverse.com/science/the-permafrost-is-doomed

 

They look at two possible scenarios.

In the far more likely of the two scenarios, they assume that humans completely eliminate manmade greenhouse gas emissions by 2100. Under this scenario, global temperatures reach a peak around 2075 before falling for 75 years to 2 degrees Celsius above temperatures in a pre-industrial Earth by 2150. That's in tune with other science on what such a drastic action would have on global warming.

What is unexpected is everything that happens after 2150. After 2150, the global temperature counterintuitively starts rising again, despite no new production of greenhouse gases.

In the highly unrealistic second scenario, which posits that humanity abruptly cuts all greenhouse gases in 2020, the same pattern of initial decline followed by global warming still occurs.

Essentially, we've missed the boat. Rather, to stop the melting of the permafrost now, the study states that "all man-made emissions would have had to be cut to zero sometime between 1960 and 1970" — when the global temperature was only 0.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

 

 

Oh No.

New study reveals the true cost of Earth's melting permafrost

We are "beyond the point-of-no-return," the scientists say.

 

BlackJack3D/Getty Images

Tara Yarlagadda

11.12.2020 3:21 PM

 

The science behind the melting Arctic permafrost, is, frankly, terrifying. As it melts, mummified remains of animals are slowly emerging, offering us a glimpse at the ancient world — one that scientists believed would always remain hidden, locked up for good. These puppies, birds, and other fauna are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine.

Now, a new study published Thursday in Scientific Reports gives us even more cause for concern.

 

 

Jørgen Randers is one of the study's authors and professor emeritus of climate strategy at the BI Norwegian Business School. He tells Inverse that the permafrost may not just be melting — it might never freeze again.

"According to our system dynamics simulation model ESCIMO, humanity is beyond the point-of-no-return when it comes to halt the melting of the permafrost using greenhouse gas cuts as the single tool," Randers says.

In other words: cutting down on (or completely eliminating) greenhouse gas emissions now won't stop the melting of the permafrost in the future.

Instead, Randers explains, it "will continue to melt over the next 500 years — irrespective of how quickly humanity cuts its greenhouse gas emissions."

 

The melting Siberian permafrost represents a vicious cycle of climate change.The Washington Post/The Washington Post/Getty Images

How did we get here — To come to this dire conclusion, Randers and co-author Ulrich Goluke used a simulation model known as ESCIMO (an Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity) to observe the self-sustained melting of the permafrost. Goluke is assistant professor at the Business School Lausanne, Switzerland.

They look at two possible scenarios.

In the far more likely of the two scenarios, they assume that humans completely eliminate manmade greenhouse gas emissions by 2100. Under this scenario, global temperatures reach a peak around 2075 before falling for 75 years to 2 degrees Celsius above temperatures in a pre-industrial Earth by 2150. That's in tune with other science on what such a drastic action would have on global warming.

What is unexpected is everything that happens after 2150. After 2150, the global temperature counterintuitively starts rising again, despite no new production of greenhouse gases.

In the highly unrealistic second scenario, which posits that humanity abruptly cuts all greenhouse gases in 2020, the same pattern of initial decline followed by global warming still occurs.

Essentially, we've missed the boat. Rather, to stop the melting of the permafrost now, the study states that "all man-made emissions would have had to be cut to zero sometime between 1960 and 1970" — when the global temperature was only 0.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

 

The melting of the Siberian permafrost.Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Vicious cycle — This bizarre oscillation in global temperature comes down to three factors: the melting of the permafrost itself, increased water vapor, and decreasing surface albedo.

These three processes interact in a self-sustaining feedback loop, resulting in more carbon (in the form of methane or CO2) being released into the atmosphere. More carbon increases global temperatures and causes even more melting of the permafrost.

Let's focus on that last factor: surface albedo.

"Surface albedo is the same as the reflectivity, shininess of the Earth's surface as seen from space. Bright surfaces like snow and ice reflects most of the incoming energy from the Sun," Randers says.

By contrast, dark areas — like the sea — reflect less and instead absorb more energy.

"This means that as the globe warms, the area covered by ice and snow diminishes, laying bare ever more ocean surface, which absorbs more of the incoming light, warming and melting even more surface ice," Randers says.

This has extreme implications for humans over the next 200 years — from 2150 on, the global temperature will continue to rise 0.5 degrees Celsius every century, according to Randers.

"The rise will be so slow that humanity will probably adapt," Randers says — but he cautions that we will also suffer worse than if the temperatures and sea levels did not rise.

What's next for the permafrost — Cutting greenhouse gases in the next fifty years is still important for the survival of our species, and our actions now do influence temperature increases in the future. But we also need to innovate our way out, too.

"The world should accelerate its effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions and start developing the technologies for large scale removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere," Randers says.

[LibertyBell]

and now for some good news lol.... a soil bacterium that extracts methane from the atmosphere

 

https://www.inverse.com/article/54695-this-bacterium-could-help-curb-climate-change
 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

https://www.inverse.com/science/5-strategies-for-climate-change

 

According to a new study published Thursday in the journal Science, the food industry is on track to produce 1,356 gigatons of carbon dioxide between 2020 and 2100. As the researchers highlight in the study, that is enough carbon dioxide to push the Earth beyond 2 degrees Celsius of global warming within that time frame, even if every other industry that produces CO2 suddenly halted.

 

But there is a way out. In the report, the scientists detail five strategies to change how we produce, supply and consume our food. Together, these solutions would result in an up to 18 percent decrease in CO2 emissions from food production. They could even tip the industry into being carbon negative.

The five strategies the scientists propose are:

• Global adoption of a plant-based diet, like the Mediterranean diet.
• Reducing personal consumption to healthy, recommended amounts.
• Improving crop yields using genetics and other technology.
• Cutting food waste by half.
• Using precision technology, like fertilizers and food additives.

Why change — Right now, food production releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Clearing and deforestation for agriculture and livestock, fertilizers, and fossil fuels used in food production and supply chains all added up to the release of more than 35 trillion tons (16 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide equivalents per year from 2012 through 2017, according to the paper.

Reducing food-related emissions will “likely be essential” to meeting goals to prevent global warming set out by the Paris Climate Agreement, according to the study.