Kyoto Treaty
given that we're all experiencing weird weather
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=13023&page=3
and other strange phenomena, isnt it about time America signed up to the treaty and big industries took action, to set an example to the public to do their part?
do you do your part?
We could make a pretty good dent in it by throwing all the illegals out. Since 1990 (base year) our population has skyrocketed from 249 million to 301 million. A large part of this is illegals and their spawn (legals). No wonder emissions are up. :rolleyes:
You first, hypocrite
I'm well aware of the hypocrisy, but my point was to bring the big industries into line would go a long way to encouraging the average Joe to do their part, e.g., recycling, saving energy etc.
If the USA would sign the treaty, perhaps that would set an example to the American public.
btw, our Govt is the hypocrite, not me.
It the cows I tell ya!!
theres a lot of truth in that statement. a first time for everything.
theres a lot of truth in that statement. a first time for everything.
Ouch!
You first, hypocrite
A DTI spokeswoman said the UK's total carbon dioxide emissions, including the contribution from homes, cars and air travel, was now expected to total some 529 million tons by 2010.
That is 10.6 per cent below their level in 1990 - but compared with the Government's own target of a 20 per cent cut - or even the 12 per cent reduction required to meet Kyoto, they are not meeting requirements.
Their goal was 20, and their obligation was 12, but they got 10.6. How did the US, with no goal or obligation, do, as a reference for comparison? Is the 10% reduction just a result of natural technological adoption, or did they do something to get there?
via second link
In the U.S., figures released by the Energy Information Administration at the end of 2004 showed that emissions had risen by 13.4 percent from 1990 levels.
But according to 2003 figures cited by Friends of the Earth Europe this week, some countries which, unlike the U.S., do have legally binding Kyoto targets are doing as badly, or even worse.
For instance, Austria was set a Kyoto target of -13 percent, but emissions are running at +16.6 percent. Italy's target was -6.5 percent, and its actual emissions are +11.6 percent. Others that are off target include Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain, while France, Britain and Germany are nearer to being on track.
Compared to the aggregate -8 percent target for the E.U.'s then 15 member states, the actual situation is -1.7.
"If current trends continue, Europe will not meet its Kyoto target," the green group said, adding that "if emission levels continue to develop as they did over the last three years, the [15 E.U. members'] emissions in 2010 will be +2.8 percent above of what they were in 1990."
The UK has been changing from coal to natural gas which is where their savings lie.
Industry does most of the polluting and dumps most of the co2 and that is where we need to focus first... the treaty needs to be signed and adhered to, now.
The US population, also, needs to get off of our asses and reduce our individual carbon footprint... soon, it should be legislated.
However, if we go after industry first, all of our appliances will be more efficient already. That will automatically give us a smaller carbon footprint.
So there's really no call to accuse the UK of hypocracy. If it had been Austria or Italy, perhaps, but the UK is doing quite well.
Perhaps touche' would have been more appropo.
Is it warm in here or is it just me?
Considering China has almost four times the population of the U.S. but uses half the amount of oil, I think the first step anyone should take is the people of the U.S. (most likely lead out of necessity by the government) need to make a huge change in our dependency.
Which in essence means that the U.S. needs to stop backing out of things we sign like a no-good lazy uncle. The Geneva Convention and the Kyoto Treaty, two very important agreements between the cultures of the world, are now being used to wipe the asses of our government. What happened to simple morals? Does our Cabinet remind anyone else of a bunch of jocks trying to run "the best party ever?"
The contribution of the US to the world GNP is pretty much the exact same as its oil consumption: around 25%.
Japan signed it and their production of greenhouse gasses actually increased. But at least they signed it and I guess that's all that matters.
So, to immediately put my foot in my mouth:
China: Kingdom of bicycles no more
Be worried. If you have given even a moment's thought to climate warming and its potential impact on our planet, be very worried. China, a nation of 1.3 billion people, has abandoned the bicycle as a principal mode of transportation and is now moving at a frightening pace to a car-based economy.Do you blame them?
When we start riding bicycles to work then we can complain about them not using bikes to get to work.
We can complain anyway. That's one of the benefits of that Bill of Rights thingy that we have and everybody else doesn't.
We can complain anyway. That's one of the benefits of that Bill of Rights thingy that we have and everybody else doesn't.
why doesnt it get used? what can it achieve if it were to be used?
It wasn't a complaint, it was just the exact opposite of what I said before. I was using China as an example of a country that doesn't have too bad of a dependency on oil, but it looks like times are a changing.
I don't really get it. Why would China do this? In the US, we were settled after the invention of the car, so we built everything far apart because we could. Now we need cars because nothing is close to anything else.
In China, they have been doing just fine with bicycles. I assume things are close together if bikes work OK. Why switch to cars if it ain't broke?
Yes, China and India are very naughty... does not matter, we need to do what we need to do, period.
Doing what is right has nothing to do with what others are doing.
In fact, it gives one a stronger platform from which to argue your point.
It has everything to do with what others are doing. If our costs increase (as a result of stricter enforcement/higher standards) and their's don't then demand for our goods and services decline and jobs disappear, wages drop, etc.
I'm glad we aren't signing that stupid treaty - it hamstrings the US and lets China and India do whatever the hell they want. How many jobs are you willing to sacrifice over this?
Beestie: I don't understand your connection between the Kyoto treaty and lost jobs. Not that you're right or wrong, I'm just in the dark.
I think the number of jobs or the economic backlash shouldn't be as important as the overall death of the planet. If we wait till no one loses something from the changes, then it will be far too late- if it isn't already. I think the whole world culture needs to agree to a very proactive change in the way we treat the planet. Like the Kyoto Treaty as a start
Planetary death is hyperbole. Should we move past fossil fuels? Of course. Fossil fuels are old dirty tech, we can do better. The problem is the way way we move forward. Lots of our environmental friends look back at pre-industrial society as a model. Starvation, no communication, closed societies, human bondage, you know, the good old days. We John Waynists prefer to improve our way out of problems.
I don't really get it. Why would China do this? In the US, we were settled after the invention of the car, so we built everything far apart because we could. Now we need cars because nothing is close to anything else.
In China, they have been doing just fine with bicycles. I assume things are close together if bikes work OK. Why switch to cars if it ain't broke?
Because America gets special treatment over the rest of the world? :rolleyes: Grow up and learn that other nations will do anything to get to half the standard of living we have now and we have no right to hold them back.
I don't really get it. Why would China do this? In the US, we were settled after the invention of the car, so we built everything far apart because we could. Now we need cars because nothing is close to anything else.
Settled after the invention of the car? The population increased but most of the states and major cities were in place. Most of the land was spoken for and at least sparsely settled.
Sure levittown and commuting came along after the car but that was a chicken/egg deal.
In China, they have been doing just fine with bicycles. I assume things are close together if bikes work OK. Why switch to cars if it ain't broke?
They used bicycles because it beat walking or a Water Buffalo. Being dirt poor, and not much they could do about it under Mao, it was the best they could do. It's hard to move a refrigerator or console TV on a bike, but they didn't have either, for the most part.
Most of China has extremes in weather, from bitter snowy winter to monsoons and tropical downpours. How much fun is that on a bike?
They didn't travel far because there was nothing to travel to, no malls, no Disney World, no resorts for the peasants.
Roads are shit, too. They just started their road overhaul to connect every town and city with decent roads for the first time in history.
You may see their lifestyle as quaint and bucolic, but I'm sure they're damn sick of it.
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm....?:biggrinje
Settled after the invention of the car? The population increased but most of the states and major cities were in place.
True but what really exploded the cities and urban centers was the National Defense Act of 1954 which funded the construction of the freeway system as a means to rapidly evacuate the city centers in the event of a nuclear attack.
Those freeways unintentionally led to the creation and growth of suburbia and the massive sprawl we see today.
OK, but if we hadn't spread out, where would we put 300 million people? :confused:
It has everything to do with what others are doing. If our costs increase (as a result of stricter enforcement/higher standards) and their's don't then demand for our goods and services decline and jobs disappear, wages drop, etc.
You have posted classic MBA reasoning. Why do you not ride in a Pinto? Because with innovation, costs decrease. Why did car prices decrease? People who just assume - who said increased pollution control means increased costs. They lied the exact same way as Beestie does now. Things that reduce pollution also meant higher gas mileage. That means less cost. But those who only know using a political ideology automatically know innovations will only increase costs.
Where does the designer reside on a spread sheet? Not in the column called assets. He resides in the column called expenses. That is the attitude of those who just know - don't first learn facts. Beestie automatically knows solution to global warming will only increase costs. So why does the basic car not cost $40,000 as predicted by those who opposed air pollution reduction?
Beestie automatically knows innovation will only increase costs - cause job losses. That was the same mentality at Xerox when technology such as SDS was stifled - because it increased costs by complicating technology. Today that concept in SDS is in all computers - as Xerox destroyed jobs because it feared innovation. Beestie - you are posting exactly like those who fear rather than innovate. You post with the philosophy taught in business schools where the advancement of mankind is irrelevant.
Beestie – learn from history. Don’t post anti-American rhetoric. As environmental problems were addressed, then costs decreased and jobs increased. Where Americans denied the damagers of pollution, then costs increased You are posting the lies of those who use poltics rather than logic and the lessons of history. You are making blanket assumptions and declaring your speculations as fact. Reality is that much of the solutions to global warming also mean better lifestyles and more jobs. You don’t believe this. Then post technical details rather than wacko extremist speculations. Where are your numbers that costs would increase?
Where are your numbers that costs would increase?
I think you guys are talking about 2 different numbers.
Short term - costs increase due to additional components, retooling factories. . . production changes and so on.
Long term costs SHOULD decrease. You gave some examples there are others as well.
In this case Beestie is talking about us having regulations and "them" not. Thats may or may not change things - there are a lot of variables to address.
They lied the exact same way as Beestie does now.
Your logic only works if all parties are subject to the same set of regulations. If a Chinese company can just dump their untreated toxic waste into the Yellow River and eject their untreated fumes straight into the sky and make their employees work 10 hours a day with no benefits, no breaks for $1.50 per hour but I have to sanitize what I put into the river and clean what I put into the sky and pay a decent wage with benefits and not work my employees to death than who do you think is going to have the lower price and, therefore, all of the business? And if they price me out of the market, then they experience job growth and I don't.
My problem with Kyoto is pretty much that.
But incompetent government bureaucrats who have job security for life, are accountable to no one, who have never agonized about losing business to foreign competitors unencumbered by meddlesome government regulations and union constraints have the nerve to portray me as a liar because I'm not trying hard enough to "innovate" my way out of being hogtied by the unfair treaties and senseless mountain of regulations they never grow weary of saddling me with.
That cracking sound you hear are the shattered spines of thousands upon thousands of small American businesses for whom "long-term" is 90 days. GM has pockets deep enough to solve all the problems the government creates for it. But what about the other 150,000 businesses who aren't in the Fortune 100?
Don't sign a treaty that gives away the farm, the horses, the plow and the axe then tell me to eat cake. Get a real job. Run a real business. Climb down out of your ivory tower and come down here in the fields and trenches and do what I do better than I do it.
Then you can call me a liar.
Beestie, it sounds like your complaints are with the nature of economics, which is a very viable argument. The Kyoto Treaty however, in my opinion, shouldn't be held back because it may be bad for our economics. Our economic system, hell the whole industrialized world's economics, is a complete mess and will never find a balance. If the Kyoto Treaty is signed and adhered to by even just the U.S. we would help start the trend towards helping the planet, and we would have to mess with our economic system like we always do. Regardless, the U.S. would continue outsourcing/importing everything (also known as giving away the farm, etc).
But incompetent government bureaucrats who have job security for life, are accountable to no one, have never agonized about losing business to foreign competitors unencumbered by meddlesome government regulations and union constraints have the nerve to portray me as a liar because I'm not trying hard enough to "innovate" my way out of being hogtied by the unfair treaties and senseless mountain of regulations they never grow weary of saddling me with.
Don't sign a treaty that gives away the farm, the horses, the plow and the axe then tell me to eat cake. Get a real job. Run a real business. Climb down out of your ivory tower and come down here in the fields and trenches and do what I do better than I do it.
Then you can call me a liar.
I'm with you on this one - well said. lt sucks, but its true!
OK, but if we hadn't spread out, where would we put 300 million people? :confused:
On top of each other... Ask Japan. They've got 40% of our population and 4% of our land.
given that we're all experiencing weird weather
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=13023&page=3
and other strange phenomena, isnt it about time America signed up to the treaty and big industries took action, to set an example to the public to do their part?
do you do your part?
I believe much of that is dependent on that big yellow thing that rises every morning and natural cycles. I remember in the 70`s we were told were going through"Global Cooling".
On top of each other... Ask Japan. They've got 40% of our population and 4% of our land.
I don't want to live like they do.... ever. :headshake
Friday, February 13, 1998 Published at 19:25 GMT
Sci/Tech
Scientists blame sun for global warming
The Sun is more active than it has ever been in the last 300 years
Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.
Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.
The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.
Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.
And individual cycles can be more or less active.
The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.
That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed.
The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.
Ancient trees reveal most warm spells are caused by the sun
Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.
They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.
The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.
BBC
One, it is a combination of all the effects. Two, that doesn't mean that greenhouse gases don't hurt us. If they are predicting a mini ice age the
global dimming will only make it worse. I would rather live in a hot world than a cold one.
One, it is a combination of all the effects. Two, that doesn't mean that greenhouse gases don't hurt us. If they are predicting a mini ice age the global dimming will only make it worse. I would rather live in a hot world than a cold one.
Mostly it means the scientist have little idea about what exactly is causing the warming...but scare tactics produce grants...grants=money...it`s self propagating.
And was or was not the language of the Kyoto Protocol written fairly explicitly as a sandbagging of the West, by exempting the smokestackey-stage Indian and Chinese economies from its provisions?
Bullshit; and bullshit makes methane, 23 times the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is.
Even Bill Clinton, not a dab hand at discerning the Republic's best interest nor at foreign policy in general, couldn't swallow this ripoff.
Your logic only works if all parties are subject to the same set of regulations. If a Chinese company can just dump their untreated toxic waste into the Yellow River and eject their untreated fumes straight into the sky and make their employees work 10 hours a day with no benefits, no breaks for $1.50 per hour but I have to sanitize what I put into the river and clean what I put into the sky and pay a decent wage with benefits and not work my employees to death than who do you think is going to have the lower price and, therefore, all of the business? And if they price me out of the market, then they experience job growth and I don't.
My problem with Kyoto is pretty much that.
If your reasonings were correct, then Americans in 1980 were massively unemployed because American vehicles and industries had to meet 1970 pollution control. Industries that innovated (ie oil companies) ended up selling their American innovation all over the world - more jobs. Companies that fought such innovations ended up firing American workers and running to government for protection as those same technologies appeared in superior Japanese and European products. Why does Ford now have to license technology from Toyota?
Are we now poorer because the Cuyahoga River no longer catches fire? Are we poorer because NYC no longer dumps their garbage and sewage raw in the Atlantic Ocean? Of course not. When Americans innovated to meet those 1970 pollution control requirements, then more jobs resulted. Solutions even created increased productivity. Like it or not, that is the reality of history. Yes, some jobs were lost. But then computers also put thousands of accountants and factory workers out of work. Should we stop innovation because jobs are lost?
Agreed that government should not have to force innovation. But then car companies would not even install seat belts or safety glass until forced to by government regulation. Clearly since other nations did not require that, then other nations had more jobs? Nonsense. Telcos would not provide DSL until forced to by government regulation. Clearly we are all poorer because government mandated innovation? Oil companies would not remove lead from gasoline until forced to by regulation. For every case where jobs were lost are just as many cases were more jobs were created. Meanwhile standards of living increased.
Are you telling us we would all be wealthier and healthier if government did not remove lead from gas or stop widespread air pollution? Are you saying we would all be drinking clean water if use and disposal of trichloralethylene had not been banned by government regulation? Do you know how we once cleaned PC boards? Freely usage of ozone depleting solvents. What resulted? PC boards now constructed using materials that reduced costs; electronic boards cleaned in a dishwasher (an eye opener among those who fear wet electronics).
Europeans will now ban lead in all electronics. Therefore Europeans will lose electronics markets due to higher costs? No. That technology is all but being imposed even upon Americans. Clearly Europeans are losing jobs because government requires no more lead? Only where American solutions to lead free are better. Americans were required to install GFCIs in all homes. Does that mean jobs lost? Of course not. GFCI technology was then exported to other nations - more wealth from new markets.
History demonstrates there is little relationship between job losses and environmental regulations. When jobs are lost, well, the environmental threat did not exist. But global warming and its negative consequences do exist. Those who do address the problem will own the technologies and industries that will be necessary. Furthermore, we know from history that a vast number of these solutions mean less manufacturing costs.
Why should the Chinese change? Their realized gains in 8% growth are countered by unrealized losses estimated as high as 15% annually. Clearly they have a better and wealthier future? That is what was assumed despite the numbers. Ignored is that China will have to buy equipment from those who innovated - whose designs and machines both pollute less and therefore often cost less. IOW China will remain poorer because they remain in denial - viewing only realized profits rather than all profits.
Americans have numerous safety equipment, material handling equipment, etc in semiconductor fabs. Taiwan manufacturers may literally handle hazardous materials by hand. So who has the more profitable semiconductor fabs? Well, the Taiwanese do get low margin and less sophisticated products. In one case, a complete and new fab literally burned to the ground. How do they remain competitive? Cost control. Pay employees less, lower standards of living, etc. According to principles expressed by Beestie, Taiwanese should have cornered the market on semiconductor manufacturing. They don't. Even with safety standards that are (relatively) almost non-existent, Taiwanese do not own this industry. Therefore they must cut costs elsewhere. How can this be? It is not obvious if using blanket assumptions. But Taiwanese can only complete by reaping less profits and a lower standards of living.
Nations that addressed ozone depletion, acid rain, air pollution, etc all ended up with more jobs, new products, and increased exports to those who remained in denial. Why is German equipment now so necessary in American coal plants? Because Americans refused to address environmental problems created by coal plants. Did the Germans have higher costs and fewer jobs? No. Richer Germans addressed environmental those problems. Germans imposed regulations not required anywhere else. Therefore German innovation resulted in international sales, better standard of living, and more jobs in new industries.
Beestie's logic is predicated on same myths that called computers bad only because computers destroyed factory and accounting jobs. Nations that create global warming solutions will be wealthier - have more productive jobs - as history has repeatedly demonstrated. Those solutions will be required everywhere. Who will have those jobs? Same reasons to deny air pollution in late 1960s are the exact same arguments to deny global warming solutions.
Nations that addressed ozone depletion, acid rain, air pollution
Yeah, whatever happend with the ACID RAIN? Such a big enviromental issue 20-30 years ago and now suddenly it seems to be solved. Or was it a hoax after all? Like a severe draught was the reason of trees dying rather than acid rain...
And what happened with all those DDT poisoned birds? After the ban they started doing great! Was the DDT scare a hoax after all?
Beestie: I don't understand your connection between the Kyoto treaty and lost jobs. Not that you're right or wrong, I'm just in the dark.
I think the number of jobs or the economic backlash shouldn't be as important as the overall death of the planet. If we wait till no one loses something from the changes, then it will be far too late- if it isn't already. I think the whole world culture needs to agree to a very proactive change in the way we treat the planet. Like the Kyoto Treaty as a start
No jobs would be lost, in fact many would be created by creating the c02 scrubber industry.
If we do not adopt it, we have no position to convince other nations to adopt it. I prefer us adopt the high ground instead of being hypocrites yelling "you first".
I also agree that methane needs to be the next thing addressed.
There were massive productivity losses associated with the adoption of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, but they are losses that we had to take as a nation.
We do have other, security oriented, reasons to get off fossil fuels. We subsidize oil heavily with blood and treasure. If we shifted (skip the blood part) that subsidy to biofuel, solar, and wind power (insert nuke argument at your own risk) we could address both GW and energy security, creating a left/right coalition. It wouldn't be painless but the new growth in the cleaner energy sector would offset things somewhat.
Exactly, and those productivity losses are projected to only be temporary.
The more we diversify our energy sources and get off of fossil fuels the better-off we will be.
The only reason not to do it is fear of change and
nothing more.
Now is only
better for the long run.
Only after the last tree has been cut down.
Only after the last river has been poisoned.
Only after the last fish has been caught.
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.
-Cree Indian prophecy
A "severe draught" would at least injure a tree -- by blowing the leaves off. ;)
draft? At first I thought you meant drought. You do mean draft right?
He meant drought. Unfortunately, his fingers didn't quite cooperate and his spellchecker was, of course, useless.
We do have other, security oriented, reasons to get off fossil fuels. We subsidize oil heavily with blood and treasure. If we shifted (skip the blood part) that subsidy to biofuel, solar, and wind power (insert nuke argument at your own risk) we could address both GW and energy security, creating a left/right coalition. It wouldn't be painless but the new growth in the cleaner energy sector would offset things somewhat.
Unfortunately, in the USA, Biofuel immediately gets translated into methanol. As you can see happening already, methanol is being made from corn because it's the easiest (high sugar content) and most profitable raw material available.
The flies in the ointment are; that corn is food for us and livestock, corn is very energy intensive to grow, corn is susceptible to weather/wind damage, corn requires huge amounts of water.
Also, since methanol gives you only 2/3 the mileage of gasoline, producing it from corn, or any biomass for that matter, will use immense tracts of land.
Nukes for power, is the smart way to go. Three mile island happened because the government over regulated the industry, driving the costs through the roof on every plant constructed. This caused the operating companies to cut costs any where they could. It became a cat & mouse game between the feds and power companies. The company sees something that costs $100 and not covered in the rules.... poof, gone and $100 saved. Feds see it gone and make a new rule that will now cost the power company $200. More need to cut costs... more expensive rules, etc, etc, etc.
I've often wondered about the umpteen layers of automatic alarms and controls. The control room operators had too much time to get distracted with entertainment. Too much opportunity for multitasking. Like the guy with the cruise control set, reading a book, while roaring up the turnpike at killing speeds. When the shit hits the fan, he's not prepared to make the right decisions even if he has time. People that are not focused make more mistakes, are not prepared to make those second nature moves in an emergency.
The Soviets may have been the opposite although I'm not sure how their plants operated. But, the other nations have been successful, especially France, by making a design and repeating it as often as needed instead of every plant being unique because of ever increasing government rules.
Hey guys, lets build a nuke.
What's it going to cost?
Damifino, the rules keep changing during, and after, construction so we don't know till it's done.
Uh, well, no thanks.:rolleyes:
Nuclear power is a good base power system because you can build them anywhere, perferably not in heavily populated areas, but you are not resticted by the enviornment.
A river is useful, if not necessary, for the cooling tower, though.
The biggest bonus of a nuclear reactor is that the pollution goes into barrels instead of the air. And the danger related to those barrels has a silver lining- unlike the toxic sludge from any number of other industries, many steps are taken to ensure they don't just get dumped in the river.
Unfortunately, in the USA, Biofuel immediately gets translated into methanol. As you can see happening already, methanol is being made from corn because it's the easiest (high sugar content) and most profitable raw material available.
The flies in the ointment are; that corn is food for us and livestock, corn is very energy intensive to grow, corn is susceptible to weather/wind damage, corn requires huge amounts of water.
Also, since methanol gives you only 2/3 the mileage of gasoline, producing it from corn, or any biomass for that matter, will use immense tracts of land.
We need to keep in mind that cars are not the main source of co2 emissions. Electricity production is the real problem, with cars providing a convenient scapegoat. Electricity producers have fooled around with other kinds of biomass such as poplar trees and switch grass which still have emissions but don't introduce sequestered co2 into the atmosphere. I'd like to see energy production become more distributed using whatever makes the most sense in a given locale. I would think that spreading out production would make the grid more bullet proof, terrorist proof, and idiot proof.
A river is useful, if not necessary, for the cooling tower, though.
The biggest bonus of a nuclear reactor is that the pollution goes into barrels instead of the air. And the danger related to those barrels has a silver lining- unlike the toxic sludge from any number of other industries, many steps are taken to ensure they don't just get dumped in the river.
The cooling towers can run a closed loops, they are replacing the need for huge amounts of cooling water. They do, however, need a river or lake for an emergency supply of water that is instantly available. The lake can be man made though.
You bring up the waste problem that's constantly pointed out. Yes, the existing plants are up to their ears in barrels of waste with no place to send them because the Feds have been dragging their feet.
Some of the waste is highly contaminated or spent fuel, but most of those barrels are full of dirty laundry.
Seriously, the Boiling Water Reactors the General Electric builds, have the steam created in the reactor powering the turbines, so everything that steam/water touches is contaminated. Subsequently, the work clothes and small tools, rags, etc, have to be disposed of in barrels, constantly.
Every man, on every shift, of every day, for the last howmany years, has had to put everything in the barrels. That's a lot of damn barrels of very low grade contamination they don't know what to do with.
Seems to me the feds have all that property where they did A-bomb tests, above and below ground, for years. Now that property is contaminated for the next seventy eleven thousand years anyway, so put the shit there. OK, the high level spent fuel and such has to be handled more carefully but that's a fraction of the waste generated and it can still go there.
Building Pressurized Water Reactors, where the steam from the reactor transfers the heat to another closed steam loop for the turbines, keeps the contamination out of the turbines. That way the workers in most of the plant don't have to "suit up" and subsequently fill more barrels. PWRs are more expensive to build but cheaper to operate.
It can be done. It has been done. All over the world, nukes have been running successfully and safely for a long time. Ask the French.
The key is to design a plant that's acceptable and build them all the same. That way everybody knows the plan and it's cost, up front. No expensive delays for changes in the middle of construction and uniform, proven, control systems that are familiar to every operator.
OK, I'll get off my soap box now. :blush:
xoxoxoBruce, you're right on the money about the nuke plants. Go Nukes! But I think you missed a point about the biofuels. Corn, being so full of sugary goodness, usually gets converted to Ethanol, not Methanol, by way of fermentation.
Yes Ethanol, my bad. Methanol is drawn off and reused in the Bio-diesel process but not used as a motor fuel. Maybe if they put a little meth in the ethanol, it would get better mileage.;)
That's a lot of damn barrels of very low grade contamination they don't know what to do with.
GWB wants to send it down here. You can keep it, thanks very much. :3eye:
We have to become smarter with our energy production and use, but some of the ideas going around are crazy (like using wind power in areas with erratic, and unpredictable wind conditions). I favour nuclear energy as long as the disposal of waste is worked out, and so far what I have read (not here - I mean in press releases), sounds more like Disneyland, than reality. Hydrogen cells for cars also sounds good - cost is the problem for cars, but the cost/benefit for public transportation is not bad.
What about solar?
Yes, I should have mentioned solar. We are using it more and more down here, but it is still expensive.
I'm told you'd get methanol from fermentation of cellulosic corn waste -- the stalks and shucks. Makes sense to me -- there's a reason they called it wood alcohol once upon a time.
Popular Mechanics once mentioned something called "dissociated alcohol" -- using the waste heat going out the exhaust manifold (c. 20% of the energy evolved from burning the fuel, used to expel the burnt charge from every combustion and not available at the crankshaft) to crack alcohol into two gases, CO and H2, and burning these in the cylinders without even needing the engine up to temp. It was supposed to up the mileage by quite a bit. Anything to this?
FWIW, somebody patented the process.
Solar: high installment cost, low running costs. Helpful to have a nice big desert handy... make photovoltaic units as immortal as you can and you'll see a steady long-term increase.
The ultimate in photovoltaic by any process is a Dyson sphere, however. Sci-fi types have wondered just how much such artifacts would resemble red-giant phase stars from a long way off.
What about solar?
Solar power works exceptionally well in places like the Meditteranean, but in the UK we dont get enough sunlight to power the generators. There are other alternatives though, which Govts overlook because theyve always been considered "kooky". Well, the kooks were right all along, and unless something changes drastically, the planet is fucked.
The Geneva Convention and the Kyoto Treaty, two very important agreements between the cultures of the world, are now being used to wipe the asses of our government.
1. Just for the record, the US (rightfully) never signed the Kyoto treaty - as it was ONLY aimed at bringing the standard of living of the "haves" down to that of the "have-nots". The only limits were to be placed on the "wealthy countries".
A question for you, what percentage of CO2 emitted during 2006 do you suppose was emitted by natural emitters (volcanoes, etc), and what percent was emitted by the people of the USA?
Why do you suppose most "liberals" oppose any of the many possible alternative energy sources available (Teddy Kennedy opposed a wind farm near the "Kennedy Compound"). Could it be an overwhelming sense of guilt for having more than many other countries?
2. The Geneva Convention rules for treatment of POWs do not apply to people not in uniform (non-combatants) except to authorize their execution as spies when they are apprehended acting as combatants. Al Qaeda did not have a representative at the Geneva Convention, and are not signatories of that treaty.
In the US, we were settled after the invention of the car, so we built everything far apart because we could. Now we need cars because nothing is close to anything else.
One group of my ancestors came to Texas in 1834, and another group in 1852. The entire country was settled LONG before the invention of the automobile. My Grandfather (who lived until I was 29 years old), never saw an automobile until he was a grown man.
This is a "chicken or egg" argument. The reason we took to the automobile as we did was the already existing open space in the country
Jerry Murdock
2. The Geneva Convention rules for treatment of POWs do not apply to people not in uniform (non-combatants) except to authorize their execution as spies when they are apprehended acting as combatants. Al Qaeda did not have a representative at the Geneva Convention, and are not signatories of that treaty.
Incorrect. June last year the US Supreme Court decided by a 5-3 vote that in effect granted al- Qaeda terrorists the same rights as American soldiers.
How does the Supreme Court get the authority to unilaterally alter the Geneva Convention? :right:
The manufacturing process for solar cells needs to be improved markedly before it becomes a viable option for mass production. At the moment the expense and the detrimental environmental aspects are the main problems. Once they're up and running they're great though. We never pay for hot water in our house. That's the only solar device we have atm though.
I'm more into hydrogen, the current best option IMO.
Do they address hydrogen's
diffusion through metals concerns? This link is to a technical paper, not necessarily clear to a layman like me, but there does seem to be a real problem with storage, especially at elevated temperatures (cryo has less of a problem this way), of gaseous hydrogen.
What I make of it is that in simple terms, the H2 molecule reacts with the surface of the metal of its storage container to break apart into single hydrogen atoms whose minuscule size permits them to diffuse into the metal's crystalline structure and eventually to head right on out.
Too, there's metal-hydride storage, trying to take advantage of this property of gaseous hydrogen, but questions of weight and of energy density need to be answered satisfactorily.
I have no problem with the assertion that there are kinks to work out with it currently.
The same is true with most plans.
Bio-fuels, per-gallon put more contaminants into the environment than regular fuels because the manufacturing is not up to speed yet.
I'm more into hydrogen, the current best option IMO.
What was missing in the president's list of alternative energy? Hydrogen. The myth about hydrogen fuels even got to the White House. Hydrogen as a medium such as a battery? Maybe. Hydrogen as a fuel - it was a myth.
Meanwhile alternative energy sources - the solution to global warming - have been recently demonstrated in solar cells. Solar cells tend to be only efficient at particular frequencies. Solar cells are typically 10% and sometimes as high as 22% efficient. However a recent demonstration has managed to convert more frequencies into electricity. Efficiencies of up to 40% may be coming.
Brazil already demonstrates bio-fuel that is economically viable. US does not have that process for ethanol. Therefore the US imposes massive tariffs to keep Brazilian ethanol out of America. Again politicians making science decisions not in the interest of science or the economy.
One need only visit the attic on a winter day to appreciate how much energy is available - dissipated by a roof. Solutions exist. Just not where politicians somehow know science - scientists be damned. Hydrogen as a fuel - total myth. Nations who solve gobal warming by doing science will have more jobs and the new products. Even George Jr's State of the Union speech no longer listed the hydrogen myth.
Why does everyone speak of these tariffs as if we cannot just get rid of them in one day?
Just get rid of the damn things.
Why does everyone speak of these tariffs as if we cannot just get rid of them in one day?
Just get rid of the damn things.
Dictators and those who love those dictators fear free markets and love the resulting corruption. A perfect example is the current president and those who share his political agenda. They talk lies. In reality, one can get too rich (ie Rush Limbaugh) and reap massive campaign funds (ie DeLay, K-street Project) by acting against the free market and in favor of corruption.
American ethanol can only exist with massive government socialism. We have serious citrus shortages and we want ethanol. Brazil could provide both in significant amounts. But because so many American now in power hate free market concepts (so love dictatorships and socialism), America has massive tariffs. This is also the reason why the Doha round of GAAT had failed – maybe the first international trade convention to fail.
How does the Supreme Court get the authority to unilaterally alter the Geneva Convention? :right:
I'm sorry if I confused you. Probably the correct word in this case should be irrelevant instead of incorrect.
What I was trying to say is that it's irrelevant whether al Qaeda has signed the Geneva Conventions or not, US Surpreme Court decide to give them the same rights as US soldiers.
Far more than previously acknowledged, the battle against global warming will be won or lost in China, even more so than in the West, new data show.
A report released last week by Beijing authorities indicated that as its economy continues to expand at a red-hot pace, China is highly likely to overtake the United States this year or in 2008 as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
This information, along with data from the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based alliance of oil importing nations, also revealed that China's greenhouse gas emissions have recently been growing by a total amount much greater than that of all industrialized nations put together.
How fast they are rising:
While China's total greenhouse gas emissions were only 42 percent of the U.S. level in 2001, they had soared to an estimated 97 percent of the American level by 2006.
Does China give a shit: no,
this article talks about how bad it is, and man it's really, really fucking bad:
A total of 16 out of the top 20 most polluted cities are in China. #1 on the list is Linfen City in Shanxi Province, China. "The whole city smells and is covered in smoke."
Plugging a cigarette into his mouth, He Shouming runs a nicotine-stained fingernail down a list of registered deaths in Shangba, dubbed "cancer village" by the locals. The Communist Party official in this cluster of tiny hamlets of 3,300 people in northern Guangdong province, he concludes that almost half the 11 deaths among his neighbours this year, and 14 of the 31 last year, were due to cancer.
Mr He blames Dabaoshan, a nearby mineral mine owned by the Guangdong provincial government, and a host of smaller private mines for spewing toxic waste into the local rivers, raising lead levels to 44 times permitted rates. Walking around the village, the water in the streams is indeed an alarming rust-red. A rice farmer complains of itchy legs from the paddies, and his wife needs a new kettle each month because the water corrodes metal. "Put a duck in this water and it would die in two days," declares Mr He.
So did China sign the Kyoto Protocol?
Yes.
Why?
As a "developing country", the Kyoto Protocol does not limit China's emissions.
It's OK though,
India has found a solution to keeping cool after global warming:
Computer models show that air pollution over India could be preventing up to 15 percent of the sunlight from reaching the ground in the springtime, possibly causing temperature drops of up to 2 degrees Celsius.
So did India sign the Kyoto Protocol?
Yes
Why?
If you've read this far, I don't have to tell you.
I swear I already have the lungs of a lifetime smoker.
Just from three years in Beijing.
I think we should just eat all the cows today
Since the vultures are dwindling rapidly, they have about 20,000 cattle carcases they'd gladly have to consume.
I wonder if the China numbers include the scores of underground coal fires they can't put out and are laying a path of soot across the Arctic snow? :eyebrow:
While China's total greenhouse gas emissions were only 42 percent of the U.S. level in 2001, they had soared to an estimated 97 percent of the American level by 2006.
Well, not bad with 4 times as much inhabitants. Are you complaining that China is going to make as much greenhouse emissions as the US, doesn't that sound like pot and kettle?
And yes, Kyoto is a hoax.
I'm saying that, at the rate China's going, burning dirty coal and growing at 10% a year, they will make the rest of us look like pikers.
I'm told the worst pollution in the 1970s-80s was in eastern Europe. People who visited Poland said that the skies were gray and the river water was so foul it stank. The collectivists in China have no reason to keep their ass clean.
There's a river right outside the place I used to live in Beijing that all the lao wais (fer'n'ners) named Chou He - literally, stinky river. It was about half raw sewage, a quarter chemical waste, and maaaybe, at best, a quarter actual water.
We all had to hold our breaths crossing it.
When inspecting goods I bought in NE China, I also inspected the galvanisation. The walls of the room, or better the dungeon, where this happened were completely galvanised, the operators worked there without any protection and the chemical waste was dumped directly in the little river behind the factory. Yet this company managed to obtain ISO 9001...
What this has to do with Kyoto, probably nothing...
If they care so little as to directly dump the shit in the river, they sure aren't gonna install scrubbers on their coal smokestacks!
Yet this company managed to obtain ISO 9001...
Easy...besides the organizational crap, ISO 9001 is nothing more than, say what you do - do what you say. I'm going to dump the toxic shit in the river - I dumped the toxic shit in the river....no sweat. :D
I know how easy it is to get ISO through Shanghai.
Here's completely different in the "new" ISO 9001:2000 human resources and enviroment are very important and have to be documented all the way through.
That's wrong. The purpose of ISO was to guarantee your company had the capability, to complete a contract with acceptable quality, before you could place a bid. That's an admirable goal and makes it easier for companies to out source, when they are reassured the prospective supplier is qualified.
It also helps the little guy, the unknown bidder in that by being ISO qualified he can get into the game and compete against the big dogs.
But when they start adding environment and human resources it becomes political. When a good company in Alaska can't get ISO compliant because they can't find enough black and/or Puerto Ricans to make their quota, that sucks. If you think that is a preposterous example, then you're out of touch with today's corporate culture.
I should have expected it would not be practical for long before someone would start using it for social blackmail. The end justifies the means to these clowns regardless of harm. Damn them. :mad:
If they care so little as to directly dump the shit in the river, they sure aren't gonna install scrubbers on their coal smokestacks!
You are quite correct UT. As I pointed out once in one of our earlier discussions on Global Warming, China and India are huge producers of greenhouse gases, and neither shows any serious moves towards cleaning up their industries. We had the results from models produced by other scientists that showed alarming predictions for the World, if these countries did not act now. China and India claim that we - the West - had our chance at economic growth, and it is only fair that they have their chance now. People from my own group tried to convince Chinese authorities the insanity of what they were saying, but they are determined to press ahead, and clearly do not care what effect they have on the Earth.
I should point out that it is not just greenhouse gases. They pollute rivers, land, anything that stands in their way.
Individuals should not be the main issue. Every individual could reduce our carbon footprint to 0 and made exactly that impact.
Industry puts 99.999% of the greenhouse gasses into the environment. That is where the attack HAS to begin & where the radical change must be made to start.
Al Gore, a hypocrite that owns a mine, giant non-green mansions and flies around in a private jet, is just selling guilt and nothing else. There is no logic to it.
It is not "liberal", against progress (quite the opposite), or against your nation to feel that industry must be responsible for their trash.
Even if you do not believe that this has to do with Global Warming, it is what is the right thing to do and is the first step in moving toward eliminating needless pollution and removing our dependence on foreign oil and eventually on oil and coal as a fuel source.
_________________
given that we're all experiencing weird weather
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=13023&page=3
and other strange phenomena, isnt it about time America signed up to the treaty and big industries took action, to set an example to the public to do their part?
do you do your part?
No. Not until all parties, including so called "emerging economies" like China and India have to install and implement the same protections they expect of me. Those are two of the most polluted nasy smokey countries I have ever visited. When the Chinese and Indians insall multi-million dollar scrubbers on all their power plants and factories we may consider involvement, till then screw em.
Individuals should not be the main issue. Every individual could reduce our carbon footprint to 0 and made exactly that impact.
Industry puts 99.999% of the greenhouse gasses into the environment. That is where the attack HAS to begin & where the radical change must be made to start.
Al Gore, a hypocrite that owns a mine, giant non-green mansions and flies around in a private jet, is just selling guilt and nothing else. There is no logic to it.
It is not "liberal", against progress (quite the opposite), or against your nation to feel that industry must be responsible for their trash.
Even if you do not believe that this has to do with Global Warming, it is what is the right thing to do and is the first step in moving toward eliminating needless pollution and removing our dependence on foreign oil and eventually on oil and coal as a fuel source.
_________________
You got that right. All gore uses the same amount of energy per month that my all electric 3000 square foot house uses in a year. Hipocrites everyone of them.:mad:
till then screw em.
Who is the "em" you are referring to there? Everybody?
Who is the "em" you are referring to there? Everybody?
Everybody else who thinks we should sign. It obviously can't be everybody in general.:blush: :p :) :3eye:
Unfortunately, it is.
You think "everybody" thinks we should sign??? :worried: Obviously that is not true to we already would have...:3eye:
No, everybody gets screwed.
No, everybody gets screwed.
If "everybody" gets screwed it will not be because the US failed to sign the treaty. I promise you that. No matter how hard people want to believe that all the ills of the world are our fault.
Merc, you may appreciate this old
thread.
No. Not until all parties, including so called "emerging economies" like China and India have to install and implement the same protections they expect of me. Those are two of the most polluted nasy smokey countries I have ever visited. When the Chinese and Indians insall multi-million dollar scrubbers on all their power plants and factories we may consider involvement, till then screw em.
thats exactly the "we dont give a shit cuz we're allright" attitude that made me want ask the question in the first place, because while i agree about China and India, America is just as big a polluter and wastes more energy than countries who havent even got it to waste.
nobody so far has said whether they "do their part", by recycling paper, cardboard, glass, plastic etc.
i also agree that big polluting industries need to take the reins and set an example to the public, and even thought the treaty may seem to be a farce to some people, it has to be the first step to international concern and co-operation.
If "everybody" gets screwed it will not be because the US failed to sign the treaty. I promise you that. No matter how hard people want to believe that all the ills of the world are our fault.
But the stuff we do is the stuff we can do something about.
thats exactly the "we dont give a shit cuz we're allright" attitude that made me want ask the question in the first place, because while i agree about China and India, America is just as big a polluter and wastes more energy than countries who havent even got it to waste.
nobody so far has said whether they "do their part", by recycling paper, cardboard, glass, plastic etc.
i also agree that big polluting industries need to take the reins and set an example to the public, and even thought the treaty may seem to be a farce to some people, it has to be the first step to international concern and co-operation.
Bottom line is this. The developing economies like India and China would like nothing more than to see our country sign on to kyoto and sit back and watch as we further outsource and spend billions nation wide to meet the double standards they will never have to meet or spend money on to achieve ANY level of CO emissions that we will have to do. When the playing field is level I would agree to it. But I am not going to sit back and watch people point fingers at us as they expand and build thier economies on our back as we further spin down the toilet economically and as a nation. So yea, screw them.
But the stuff we do is the stuff we can do something about.
To what end and at what cost. Say over the next 50 years we make this the cleanest place in the world, cutting say 50% of emissions. And the world still continues to slide toward and on the same path as the developing nations would so like to see us go, down. As thier output increases and doubles or triples. What was gained? Our destruction? How about this, we cut off
all overseas payments of monetary aid to all developing nations so we can pay to clean up our house. I would agree to that. Cut off the money we send to the UN as well.
So yea, screw them.
This is the type of attitude that makes everyone hate America. Instead of working to find something we can both do and compromise we just say fuck them. This is why they want to see us fall, not because we are on top.
Even if you do not believe that this has to do with Global Warming, it is what is the right thing to do and is the first step in moving toward eliminating needless pollution and removing our dependence on foreign oil and eventually on oil and coal as a fuel source.
As surprised as you might be RR, I have been pushing that same line for years, and I agree with you 100%. If you missed my old posts on Global Warming, I am a scientist, and have worked on a project for years, that collects all sorts of climate data and other scientist's research, and I have argued for years that it does not matter if cleaning up our daily waste creation and energy usage actually has a measurable affect within our life-time, it is still worth doing. I would rather live on a cleaner planet, than a trashed one. :thumb:
Bottom line is this. The developing economies like India and China would like nothing more than to see our country sign on to kyoto and sit back and watch as we further outsource and spend billions nation wide to meet the double standards they will never have to meet or spend money on to achieve ANY level of CO emissions that we will have to do.
So you don't think we'll be here by the time emerging economies have emerged?
I wonder why that might be.
Yes I know that's not exactly what you said, but really, why would they never have to meet the same standards? People in emerging economies are not the enemy. They're just doing the same thing developed countries have been doing for centuries...and in most cases still are.
Bottom line is this. The developing economies like India and China would like nothing more than to see our country sign on to kyoto and sit back and watch as we further outsource and spend billions nation wide to meet the double standards they will never have to meet or spend money on to achieve ANY level of CO emissions that we will have to do.
Wow! You have not a clue. You never once bothered to learn from history. Those nations that innovated - that created solutions to previous environmental problems - then reaped massive profits both from less waste (more efficient industries) and from selling those innovations to all other nations. Amazing how TheMercenary so loves the status quo as to disparage innovation. Well, TheMercenary, innovation (not 'big dic' thinking) defined the patriotic American. You have just advocated communism - the stifling of innovation and maintaining status quo. Shame on you for posting without even learning from history. You have just advocated the destruction of the American economy. You actually hate innovation - or somehow know without first learning reality.
Well lets see how much knowledge your opinions are based in. Please tell us what the catalytic converter does. Since you so know India and China would love to see us innovate, then you learned from history – you can even tell us what a catalytic converter does. I await your demonstration of greater knowledge.
I think that's a pretty easy question to answer tw. You could have picked something a bit less simple to google.
You got that right. All gore uses the same amount of energy per month that my all electric 3000 square foot house uses in a year. Hipocrites everyone of them.:mad:
I hope you caught the last part.