Sigh! The error bars on these numbers really say that particulate carbon forcing may be negligible. However the effects of kerosene lanterns on people who have no access to electricity is huge. If you can figure out how to get solar cell powered LED lamps to these people, do it.

The problems in many areas will make you sick. If you visit many of the countries involved taking lamps with you as "house gifts" or presents will often involve a payoff to get through customs. The problem of getting the lamps to the back country is often the easy part. Why is there a problem? These countries in theory want to encourage local production, so they have extremely high tariffs on products that compete with those made locally. Of course, there are no LED, solar cells, or rechargeable batteries made locally--but there are kerosene lantern makers. ;-(

(Speaking as an economist, the extra productivity from people who use the lamps is more significant, as is the reduction in oil imports.)

I almost hate articles that mention the environment because then the crazies come out of the wood work. Fortunately, the response has been fairly measured so far.

There has been some knowledge about carbon black's affect on global warming for a while now. Unfortunately, anything we do about black carbon is basically a one time measure. Black carbon settles out of the atmosphere within a few decades, whereas CO2 lasts far longer, and has a more cumulative effect :/

Agreed, That Guy.

I'll add that there is nothing static about the AGW situation we're in. It's dynamic; today's 'second-leading cause' may become tomorrow's last place. At some point, methane could surge into first place, if arctic thawing continues at its current alarming pace. It's quite possible that we'll reach a tipping point beyond which warming will be runaway until it reaches a new equilibrium. Unfortunately, we do not understand climate well enough to know where the tipping points are or where they will lead.

The good news here is that curbing soot emissions, which is much easier than getting off of fossil fuels, will mitigate. The bad news is that it probably won't be enough to stop the climate from shifting to a new equilibrium point - which we can't yet predict, owing to our incomplete understanding of Earth's climate systems.

Black carbon is the SECOND LARGEST man-made contributor to global warming and its influence on climate has been greatly underestimated

With CO2 being the first largest by a land slide.
Don't worry @that_guy, the crazies aren't out tonight, just the pissed of greenies like me that just want to slap you upside the head until you realize it's not Cheetos that will kill the earth, it's ignorant humans that just follow the herd like sheep that will do it.

Like coal, diesel is pretty nasty when burned and coughed into the air. The soot is just as nasty as coal.

A modern diesel engine puts out very little pollution and is quite often less than modern gasoline engines.

Unfortunately car engines aren't the real problem (though it's good for local/city air quality that they have gotten better)
http://www.gizmag...n/11526/
Quote:"15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars"
Quote:"The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds 90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles."

And unfortunately ship diesel engines don't get replaced/upgraded to more efficient models nearly as often as car engines do.

We can migrate to other technologies for cars. For shipping I don't see it yet (the article suggests nuclear. But that would have it's own problems. 90000 reactors floating on the world seas doesn't sound like a bright idea).

Unfortunately there probably will be no real change in the use of polluting fossil fuels until something totally different will replace current engines and furnaces. What that willl be, remains to be seen. Currently, because we don't factor in cost of pollution, fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest solution as energy source. Anybody can look at www.pesn.com for possible emerging sources.

Just to add 2 cents, this is one application where fuel cell technology might work. One of the issues with such technology is the amount of "fuel" that needs to be stored, which on a ship may not be such an impedement. I don't know if the technology would be powerful enough to work for large ships though.