The Biggest Lesson to be learned from Global Warming . . . / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

The Biggest Lesson to be learned from Global Warming . . .

previous 1 2 3 4 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

williamn

Mon Mar 27 2006, 07:10AM

Registered Member #55 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 04:56AM
Location:
Posts: 149

edit; did I just reread your post to find that you were being cynical and facetious?

Cynical with a capitalC

AS for the Kyoto protocol, read it, that should provide you with the anwer to your question. I would like to see John Bolton use it for TP. I have had the "fortune" to travel to a couple "less industrialised countires" and I can definately tell you we care alot more about the environment than the governments of some of these 3rd world nations. I work in the petrochem (environmental cleanup) industry, this shit is my bread and butter.

Dr. Slack

Mon Mar 27 2006, 07:59AM

Registered Member #72 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659

Don't be too hard on the USA. The capitalism that they're doing now is pretty much what civilisation has been doing since the Greeks and Chinese, and especially the Europeans since 1800, but just doing it on a much larger scale.

Take about two paces back and take the long view.

Mining sucks, the deposits are going to run out within a forecastable time frame (but hey, not necessaily my lifetime, or my polical tenure). It doubly sucks if the spoil heap is actually damaging the place. So to dig up coal, oil gas and throw the waste into the air is really {dumb|smart} (choose one of). CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration) is slightly better as it puts the spoil heap underground, IFF that spoil heap is not going to get free anytime soon, but it's a lot less efficient than just chucking the spoil up the chimney.

Mining Uranium suffers from a different class of spoil heap problem, but a lot of people are touting it as the heap is physically much smaller. If it provides a temporary energy bridge to get us to solar, then it may be the least of several evils.

So we are left with farming/milking, which means the sun. It can be captured with PhotoVoltaics, with mirror/steam cycles, or harness eons of evolution and let biology do it with willow or other biomass plantations. Easy, apart from the area required, and the lower return on capital invested versus carbon/uranium mining, when computed with today's balance sheet methods.

However, the first problem is not going to be energy, but population. Let's assume that rising CO2 levels does raise the sea-level by a few metres. That's 25% of the world's population on coastal plains have gotta move to higher ground. What happens when this many people want a new territory? World wars have been fought over much smaller territorial ambitions, wars are presently being fought over territory issues which are nano-scale in comparison.

I am reminded of the film cliche where the hero and the villian are punching each other's lights out (capitalist economic warfare), whilst riding a train/plane/mining cart that we know (and they know) is going to crash (global warming and over-population). Don't like the metaphor? Find me a better one!

So, guys, who is going to take their head out of their ar$e, put the planet first, solve area/population/territory/energy issues, and run a less efficient industry? I don't see too many volunteers. Actually I dont see too many people capable of the job.

IMHO I don't see any good outcome for this. I think I'll just settle for being dead when the $hit hits the fan. You youngsters, you may want to move to higher, less densely populated ground now.

Ben

Mon Mar 27 2006, 03:14PM

Vigilatny
Registered Member #17 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 02:47PM
Location: NL
Posts: 158

NeilThomas wrote ...

I am reminded of the film cliche where the hero and the villian are punching each other's lights out (capitalist economic warfare), whilst riding a train/plane/mining cart that we know (and they know) is going to crash (global warming and over-population). Don't like the metaphor? Find me a better one!

To make your metaphor better you might want to add that the side effect of these guys punching each others lights out is magical anti-crashing technology pooping out their asses. Also if they stop fighting one will die while other lives a short, harsh life.

Dr. Drone

Mon Mar 27 2006, 06:54PM

Registered Member #290 Joined: Mon Mar 06 2006, 08:24PM
Location:
Posts: 1673

Madgyver

Mon Mar 27 2006, 07:06PM

Registered Member #177 Joined: Wed Feb 15 2006, 02:16PM
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 214

I don't blame the USA. I don't blame U.S. citizens.

I do blame american eco politics and industry driven administration.

FastMHz

Mon Mar 27 2006, 07:36PM

Registered Member #179 Joined: Thu Feb 16 2006, 02:08AM
Location: Hagerstown, Maryland - Close to Prime Outlets
Posts: 287

Madgyver wrote ...

I do blame american eco politics and industry driven administration.

Well said - and I didn't vote for the current admin either!

I don't blame any one country either. Think about this: India, China, Russia, etc are just now industrializing on a massive scale. Remember the dirt pouring out of American factories in the mid 20th century? This will be a repeat but much worse.

I'm an enviro-nut and do my best to help. I try to save all the electricity that I can, have energy efficient appliances, keep the thermostat down in the winter, drive a 4-banger and I don't litter. Governments need to take action to make a big difference, and none of them are (that I know of).

...

Mon Mar 27 2006, 11:53PM

Registered Member #56 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:02AM
Location: Southern Califorina, USA
Posts: 2445

FastMHz wrote ...

Madgyver wrote ...

I do blame american eco politics and industry driven administration.

Governments need to take action to make a big difference, and none of them are (that I know of).

The EPA here has made some pretty impressive moves... There was a deadline that .5million alternative fuel Cars had to be in service, smog requirements keep getting tighter, etc. Admitantly nothing drastic but that is only because they couldn't get it approved if they did. It has been working though, I (living in southern california) can vouch for that

You guys seem to think that solar power is the way to go; currently solar cells are $5/watt. An average house uses 14kw/h a day. So if you average 5 hours of sun a day; that is almost $15k in solar cells per person. Not including the electric car you will need to power. If you can get things going on a large scale and use large scale solar 'power towers' it comes down to the $5k/person. There is just no way that anyone would vote to put $5k+ on their taxes.

There are some individuals that try to go off the grid, or at least use alternative forms of energy to have a lower net or even negative power consumption, but it is really not cost effective yet.

More of a help are companies doing their part. Like my school district has only cng buses. Sure they are still fossil fuel, but they produce less of the particularly nasty ones, and right now a lot of the world's natural gas is just being burned in flares because it is too hard to transport it (that's another thing that we didn't vote for).

Just saying...

HV Enthusiast

Tue Mar 28 2006, 12:14AM

Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068

Well, if not for the liberals, we'd have a lot more nuclear power plants around generating safe and clean power . . . i'm sure the occasional nuclear disaster isn't as bad as the overall effect of global warming . . .

Desmogod

Tue Mar 28 2006, 12:50AM

Registered Member #139 Joined: Sat Feb 11 2006, 11:01AM
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 358

EastVoltResearch wrote ...

Well, if not for the liberals, we'd have a lot more nuclear power plants around generating safe and clean power . . . i'm sure the occasional nuclear disaster isn't as bad as the overall effect of global warming . . .

As soon as people realise that we have a finite supply of resources, then things like nuclear power will become more commonplace. It's just scaremongering from fossil fuel companies and ill informed idiots that has stifled the rollout of atomic energy on a wider scale.
Also, the use of fossil fuels to run cars is another bone of contention. What I find amazing is that it is a very simple fix to allow cars to run corn based alcohol, or bio diesel (VERY easy to make). BUT (And I know this is the case in Australia) It is ILLEGAL to run your cars on a sustainable fuel like biodiesel because the government can't tax it.
This means that I could be helping the environment, using up old oils that would otherwise end up in landfills or leached back into the environment, but the pollies won't let me because they can't get their slice of the cake.
Ludicrous.

williamn

Tue Mar 28 2006, 02:05AM

Registered Member #55 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 04:56AM
Location:
Posts: 149

What about the energy you need to use to distill the cornbased alchohol, is it a fossil fuel by chance? Bottom line is, minus the ocassional hippie, most people really dont care about conservation. They might say they are taking the high ground, but in reality they use just about as much engergy as the next guy(macro view). The driving force to find a "cleaner" energy force will always be economics. People will be driven to find another way when gasoline costs become to high for the market to bear. Then solar and or ethenol might be cost effective sources. If you talk to any geophysicist they will tell you oil is not rare by anymeans. The Earth is literally swimming in the stuff. It just so happens alot of it is in countries with questionable goverments.

previous 1 2 3 4 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob