Total potential global reduction in CO2 from current treaties or taxes?

Question

Let's estimate how bright our collective future looks.

These figures are from ExxonMobil that I use for a quick estimate, feel free to propose credible alternate figures:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/news_features_20070601_climate.aspx

ExxonMobil's Energy Outlookpredicts nearly a 40 percent rise in CO2 emissions through 2030. What is driving that growth?

As populations and economies expand, energy use rises, resulting in increased CO2 emissions.

About 80 percent of the anticipated growth in emissions is expected to stem from developing countries, such as China and India, as they continue to modernize and develop their economies.

...with the developing world's share of global energy use expected to rise from about 50 percent today to almost 60 percent by 2030, it is hard to see how any substantive decrease in the world's emissions total can be achieved without the participation of countries where emissions are rising most rapidly.

Answer 1

It's widely acknowledged that it's going to get worse before it gets better, and that this is an uphill battle.  I do quibble with the way you arrive at your estimate of 35% by 2030.  I would think that the change would be slower at first, then building in momentum as change takes effect.

Right now, I'd say there's simply too many variables to play this game.  But no doubt, working with China and India are going to be critical in achieving a workable level of reduction.  I do have a fair amount of confidence that the Presidential candidates can establish a good relationship with China, and that by necessity they are going to have to change the way they do business to achieve their short and long term goals.  

Number crunching at this point is bound to be a bit depressing. I expect it will be for at least another decade.

Answer 2

There is a significant risk that we will pass out of any window of opportunity to significantly slow global warming even before we do anything significant to pretend to be stopping it.

One thing fairly sure, if we continue to extract and import at current levels, we will continue to consume at current levels. As one use declines, others will increase to absorb the rest.

We may have to stop describing tax on fossil fuels as an investment that needs to pay a return. Think of it as a return that needs no investment. We get to pay down our national debt, whereas we have no theory of how we would ever pay it down without this tax.

Lack of tax tends to drive inflation. It is the inflation that is our big investment with no return.

Yes, we might feel inclined to spend more on military adventures when governments are flush with tax revenues. There is a powerful temptation to just go out and spend taxes instead of paying down debt.

We may wish to move to a slower growth, or even negative GDP growth. If that is what it takes. But we do need major investments in nuclear power. We do need major investments to get methane out of the arctic.  Carbon tax could provide for those investments if it were only in private hands (mine).

Answer 3

We have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that run on cheap oil, coal, and natural gas. We humans need 20trillion dollars worth of stuff that uses Concentration solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, hydro and conservation. We can save 50% of our electric use if we put money into superconductors in cars, trains and airplanes. Oil will last 1000 years where Exxon wants it to last just 50 more years.