Koyoto is here

[Happy Monkey]

The Chinese don't all have cars yet.

[lookout123]

oooor, maybe it's because we're the US of A and we want to be number 1 in every way possible.

[Kitsune]

The Chinese don't all have cars yet.

My understanding is that it was based on manufacturing output and didn't consider vehicle pollution. This is why I find it all a little confusing, not to mention that the numbers would be very easy to fudge.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The Chinese don't all have cars yet.

But they are working hard to get them.

I agree that nuclear power plants would be an effective alternative to hydrocarbon fuels. Alas, the public is unduely terrified of them.

I never cared much for New Jersey, but I imagine the people who live there would be rather miffed if it went under the waves.

[jaguar]

Which of course is why Jag and the Europeans like it.

Er.....

Originally Posted by jaguar
While I agree koyoto is pointless

I understand kneejerk is easier than say, thinking but at least read the fucking posts before trying to attack me.

New _massive_ carbon sources and sinks are regularly discovered,

evidence?

While it's equally easy to set up a straw man (Koyoto would lead to a fascist government is at least unique in it's idiocy) it doesn't make it any more correct. Massively reducing hydrocarbon output would require a massive investment in replacement infrastructure and re-tooling existing infrastructure but it is doable, if not politically viable.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We should follow France's lead and turn to nuclear energy. Nukes plus hybrid cars in 2020!

Actually I do think so, even though I'm a Three Mile Island "survivor". There have been safer designs of nuke plants that have been developed since the bad old days.

Let's not forget why events happen such as Three Mile Island and The Challenger. In each case, management was so technically naive as to conform to the definition of anti-American. Hell, at Three Mile Island, they only had two phone lines; had the same problems making phone calls like everyone else. The anti-American GPU Corporation could not even ask Bell of PA for more phone lines or special service.

But better management alone is not going to make nuclear a superior alternative. There remain a few major problems for which there are no reasonable answers. One major problem is waste disposal. IOW a solution does not exist. Current plants must now maintain large on-site storage of and expand facilities for more nuclear fuel waste. This even includes nuclear plants that have been shutdown. Second is that if nuclear were to be used exclusively for energy, then we have a severe shortage of nuclear fuels. Yes there is even a limited supply of raw nuclear fuel - just as their is a limit to the amount of oil and other fuels.

The problems with all this is politics - especially those opposed to Kyoto using Rush Limbaugh half truths. Politics is how we promote ostrich thinking.

First a solution is found in major technology advances. No way around that fact. Not in more wars or more energy production - the nonsense lies promoted by ostriches. We need only review previous adversity in The Cellar to quantum physics to therefore appreciate a neanderthal response to what we should be doing.

For example, there is no reason for every vehicle of current size to be getting less than 30 MPG. Many vehicles are still using 1968 technologies. And so the naive (including the president) instead hypes lies such as a Hydrogen fuel solution. Yes H2 fuel was a gross and obvious lie. They understand the neanderthals would never see through that lie. The politics is not about solutions. And that is the problem. Technical naivety gives political reasoning (ie Rush Limbaugh) more credence than science fact.

Solutions do exist IF we choose to seek them. Any nation that does develop new technologies compatible with the Kyoto protocols will create the new jobs, new industries, greater wealth, geo-political power, etc. That is even the lessons of history. Innovators get rich. Ostriches complain about how liberals made everything go wrong. We only need look at the sad state of GM or AT&T to see what will happen. GM got all the government protection they wanted - and therefore is classically anti-innovative. This is what happens when neanderthals oppose things that inspire and require innovation. The Kyoto protocols are about innovation.

Yes, nuclear could be an partial solution. But even nuclear has severe problems that we are ignoring. A real solution repeatedly involves a concept of doing more with less. The hybrid, which was possible even twenty years ago, is an example of what happens when industry takes the "we can't do it so we should never try" attitude. IOW thank god for pro-American companies such as Toyota and Honda who did not need the Kyoto protocols to do what historically makes America great: innovate - push out the envelope - admit to and address real world problems.

Those who say it cannot be solved and therefore we should not even try? We called them luddites. Conservative attitudes are where most luddites are found - because their solutions include fear, myopia, and the anti-American attitude of promoting the status quo.

The Kyoto Protocols are not really the issue. We are right back to the same reason why some foolishly advocate a useless ISS rather than the super collider. Why some foolishy let their emotions promote a 'Man on Mars' nonsense rather than promote the advancement of space science.

UT does properly note that nuclear can be a partial solution. There have been some interesting advancements to nuclear power. A country that does not fear to innovate should investigate or be willing to experiment with such ideas. However this will never happen when the George Jr administration takes a $450,000 campaign contribution so that First Energy can continue to operate a nuclear reactor with both an unresolved Three Mile Island type problem and a hole in the reactor vessel. The resulting book would have been entitled, "We almost lost Toledo".

[jaguar]

Nothing more needs to be said really

[xoxoxoBruce]

The US never built 2 nuke plants alike, indeed the plants didn’t even have 2 units alike. The long lead times for planning and construction, along with the desire to include the latest thinking/materials, led to a constant barrage of changing regulations coming from Washington. Every unit built included changes on the fly during construction.
It’s pretty obvious to scientists, inventors and auto mechanics that you don’t change more than one parameter at a time if you want to know the effect of that change. The result was no design was proven/tested over time.

France has had success with nuclear power because they standardized from the beginning. They built one design and upgraded all the plants as history and performance proved changes would be fruitful.
I don’t know what kind of effect their design or their whole program for that matter, has had on the long term health of the population but they at least haven’t blown them up.

As TW mentioned, waste is a big problem, not just spent fuels but thousands of barrels of contaminated tools, clothing and such. Imagine that every day after work you change your clothes but the ones you take off can’t be laundered, they must be stored in drums.....forever.
I may be naive but it seems to me we have all that contaminated land where they set off the nuclear tests. Why not put the waste there?

[lookout123]

I may be naive but it seems to me we have all that contaminated land where they set off the nuclear tests. Why not put the waste there?

*rush limbaugh voice* If we used the land for that purpose, where would we bani... i mean allow future generations of poor people to live?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Nothing more needs to be said really

Why do I find that as unconvincing as others found the reason article?

[jaguar]

because it's easier to put your head in the sand? Cold, hard, peer-reviewed and accepted scientific fact, cute little right wing rant magazines don't make it any less true. There is, in general still a certain level of debate about aspects of global warming inside the scientific community, I spend a fair bit of time talking with a number of people in the cambridge academic community but the only place you seem to find outright denial these days though is the chronically uninformed and laypeople in the US.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by jaguar

because it's easier to put your head in the sand? Cold, hard, peer-reviewed and accepted scientific fact, cute little right wing rant magazines don't make it any less true. There is, in general still a certain level of debate about aspects of global warming inside the scientific community, I spend a fair bit of time talking with a number of people in the cambridge academic community but the only place you seem to find outright denial these days though is the chronically uninformed and laypeople in the US.

You clearly haven't read the website. Reason is most decidedly not a right wing web site. They're a moderate, independent, science and research based group.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

You clearly haven't read the website. Reason is most decidedly not a right wing web site. They're a moderate, independent, science and research based group.

Er... Have you? They are a Libertarian backed outfit. Whenever you read or hear about some "scientific" study, your first question should be, "Who paid for it?" Ayn Rand is not an impartial funding source for scientific research.

[jaguar]

You clearly haven't read the website. Reason is most decidedly not a right wing web site. They're a moderate, independent, science and research based group.

So is newsmax. The frigging tagline is 'free minds, free markets'. It's a site i keep a weather eye on and good stuff does bubble up but please, it's not within driving distance of politically neutral. Just because the articles often make sense doesn't mean there isn't a strong political bias.

[tw]

Remove the extremist political rhetoric, and global warming is a fact. The charts alone of world historical temperatures show a most massive temperature increase in but less than 100 years - when all though history these changes took tens of thousands of years. Furthermore, the increase in global warming gases, especially CO2 has never been higher. World CO2 levels for over 400,000 years remained mostly just above 200 ppmv and never above 300. Suddenly, there is this verticle spike in CO2 to over 400 ppmv - all in 100 years. But that sharp increase in CO2 will not create global warming? Only if you blindly believe that god will determine what happens.

Easy to be a political extremist - to ignore the facts. In science, there is no doubt that man has created a sharp increase in global warming. Only two questions remain. Exactly how much does each factor contribute to the problem and how bad will the problem be. We know global warming is a problem created by man. We know it would be far worse if we had not filled the skies with so much dirt. We just don't know how bad it will become.

Those who see the future are now vying to define national boundaries in the Arctic. Sometime at or after 50 years from now, there will be no polar icecap. Time to start planning for ocean ports on the Northern Norwegian, Russian, and Canadian land masses. This again is not in dispute. The only question remains when will it happen. 2050? 2070? 2090?