If reducing soot pollution is the fastest way to reduce global warming, why do new tax proposals focus on CO2?

Question

Reducing Black Carbon, or Soot, May Be Fastest Strategy

for Slowing Climate Change

http://www.igsd.org/docs/BC%20Briefing%20Note%2027Mar08.pdf

New study: Ordinary soot second biggest driver of climate change

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/24/03319/6577

In some regions, such as the Himalayas, the impact of BC on melting snowpacks and glaciers may be equal to that of CO2.2 BC emissions also significantly contribute to Arctic ice-melt, and reducing such emissions may be “the most efficient way to mitigate Arctic warming that we know of.”3 Since 1950, developed countries have successfully reduced BC emissions by a factor of five, primarily to improve public health, and “technology exists for a drastic reduction of fossil fuel related BC” in the rest of the world.

Answer 1

"Scientists modelled the behaviour of the cooling particles years ago, but so few direct measurements have been made of the heat-absorbing effects of black carbon that, even now, models do not adequately represent their influence. The most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change1 reported that the total contribution of aerosols to climate warming since the onset of the industrial era was about 20% of that caused by greenhouse gases. As much as half of the recent warming trend attributed to CO2 and other greenhouse gases is thought1 to have been cancelled out by cooling from aerosols.

But new observations show that in some regions black carbon is as culpable as CO2 for the warming, and in some cases, has a greater effect."

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0709/...

So, more information is needed to improve the models.  Something I read in one of the NASA sites put black carbon on a par with CO2.  But for whatever reason, this hasn't caught on with the media and the public.

It's a complex subject, and the focus is going to wiggle and shift a lot in the next decade as scientists and politicians alike struggle to get a better fix on this phenomenon.

Edit: Bob, that's not exactly what I said.  To clarify:

From the source below, which is 35 pages:

"The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) identified aerosols as potentially significant contributors to climate change with radiative forcing of the same magnitude as methane, nitrous oxide or halocarbons (see Figure 1). The quantification of radiative forcing of aerosols is very difficult. Aerosols differ from the

greenhouse gases already in the inventories as they both absorb and scatter sunlight, they have indirect effects on clouds and they have short atmospheric lifetimes. Primary aerosols include carbonaceous aerosols (black and organic carbon), mineral dust, marine aerosols and biogenic material. Secondary

aerosols are formed in the atmosphere from the emission of other gases including SO2, NOx, NH3 and NMVOC1."

http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session24/in...

Answer 2

Union_Do.. said:

"Yes that would be a wonderful starting point. That really should have happened years ago. But the Conservatives don't believe in ecology. Lets see the thumbs down on this one."

Yes, generalizations and prejudices are a wonderful way begin working with another group. I suppose that is your attitude toward everything and everyone?

Amy L said:

"So, more information is needed to improve the models. Something I read in one of the NASA sites put black carbon on a par with CO2. But for whatever reason, this hasn't caught on with the media and the public."

This would be surprising--not only would it mean that all current GCMs needed major tweaking, but it would also require an overhaul of the IPCC's understanding of CO2's role in climate change, and climate change in general. It would mean a much lower climate sensitivity for CO2.

Edit:

You said:

"Something I read in one of the NASA sites put black carbon on a par with CO2"

If this is not what you meant, then you shouldn't have written this. Regardless, I have read that black carbon plays a bigger role than previously thought (bigger than the number IPCC gives)--if that is in any way true, then the GCMs will need tweaking, and it will probably lead to a lower climate sensitivity for CO2.

Here is a paper that helps establish how aerosols may mean a lower climate sensitivity for CO2:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/20...

Answer 3

We can eliminate all our soot and co2 problems by using the Plasma Enhance Melter (PEM) system. Could be expensive but effective.

Answer 4

Yes that would be a wonderful starting point. That really should have happened years ago. But the Conservatives don't believe in ecology. Lets see the thumbs down on this one.

Answer 5

GLOBAL WARMING IS'NT CAUSED BY ANYTHING MAN MADE. You figure it out==as is the invisible forcefield (ozone) has been weakened just enough to allow only enough rays through to melt the glaciers, our atmosphere has'nt leaked out and  outer space has entered our atmosphere, but solid objects can pass through it either way without any problem and all non-solids are decipated in the ice cold thinned atmosphere, like the smoke from your outside fires right before your eyes.   HAVE A NICE DAY.

Answer 6

response to the first answer, - Conservatives are conservative by nature.  (See way below for more on this)

Reducing Black Carbon should be the # 1 priority of the Global Warming Alarmists. why? because of the great deal of it produced by DEVELOPING countries.  But it is not politically expediant to harp on developing nations, especially China as they are not going to listen to the GWA crowd anyway.  They are going to do what is in their own interest because the leaders of China really could care less whether the planet warms or not and whether they are the main cause or not.

Now let me suggest another strategy.   If we really want to reduce Black Carbon emissions lets follow Icelands lead and develope Hydrogen as a fuel source.  You can make hydrogen with electricity and you can make electricity with the Sun.  Go down to the Southwest were there are around 340 sunny days per year and build a solar electric generating plant.  Pull in water from the Gulf of Baja California to the area and you don't even have to mess with the water supply.  With all the brilliant engineers we have today I am sure they could figure it all out. and begin to end our dependancy on Middle eastern oil.

Now to finish responding to answer #1.

Conservatives want to conserve.  For some that means they want to conserve the political climate we have had in this country for over 200 years.  I wholeheartedly agree with that.   But the conservatives I know, and I do know quite a few, don't want just to conserve the political climate they want to conserve the environment also.  Many of them are outdoorsmen, fishermen and hunters.  That particular piece of the conservative movement has done more to preserve the wild than any liberal movement I have ever heard of including the Greenpiece crazies.  I will add that I wholeheartedly agree with conserving the environment as well and so do the bulk of the conservatives in politics today.  Show me a 2nd amendment supporter and 99 times out of 100 I can show you a person who is in favor of conserving the wild environs of the country so they will have a place for them and their kids and their grandkids to hunt and fish and camp and mountain climb.

and finally it is painting with an awfully broad brush to say al or even most conservatives don't care about the environment.  I would say there is less than 2 or 3 % of true conservatives fit that mold, mabey even less.