I have often questioned people who firmly believe in global warming. I've never thought the science behind it was strong (can temperature measures from 100 years ago be accurate? What about the last few million years?). It's nice to see a major media outlet finally questioning the science behind global warming. While I have no doubt that in the last decade the earth's temperature has warmed a little less than a degree, geological evidence shows that these fluctuations in the earth's temperature are common.
posted by junta330 at 11:34 P.M. EST on Sat Jun 30, 2007 #
Junta, there was a Scientific American article some years ago that closely examined the methods for collecting ocean temperatures from the 1800s onward. Modern scientists have had to take such data and make certain adjustments that were not taken into account in past ages ... for example, a 0.3°F fall in sample temperature due to evaporation as the sample bucket (made of wood) was pulled up the side of the sailing ship. Data like this is fairly thorough and rigorously examined and re-examined, so there's no rational reason to discount it.
Ocean temps have unquestionably risen over the last century of close measurement. As ever, the real question is: What does a rise in ocean temperatures really mean?
posted by GuestZero at 12:01 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
I disagree GZ. So you're saying a 0.3 degree difference is significant considering the standard 1 degree raise in the last hundred years? I suppose it is significant in the respect that it shows a 30% margin of error. I know that's not what you're saying, but doesn't it matter where they take these readings? Doesn't matter how they took the temperature? And how can today's scientists really test the methods of those from over 100 years ago?
posted by junta330 at 12:16 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
So, critics of global warming, I'm with you.
The heck with caution!
Let's just be careless, thoughtless, inconsiderate, selfish, hedonistic buffoons and let the earth be doomed before its time.
Rapture, here we come.
posted by Beowulf at 08:30 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
I believe in global warming. I also believe in global cooling. I think the earth, with influence from the sun and many other geological factors (volcanoes), warms and cools and I think there is clear evidence of this in many forms.
Obviously, the earth cooled during the ice age and warmed back up again. We have glacial grooves on Kelley's Island and we don't have glaciers here today. And then there was the Little Climatic Optimum during the middle ages when they grew cereal grains in northern countries, when a multi-year drought is believed to have contributed to the decline of the Mayan civiliation and the Vikings established settlements in Greenland and Iceland. Kind of makes "obvious" the best word to describe what happens to the Earth.
With this in mind, the next question becomes what, IF ANYTHING, we should do it? And I keep coming back to the basic question: if - and it's a big 'if' - humans can have more than a miniscule impact on the warming/cooling of the earth, what is the ideal temperature? Is it today's temp? Is it warmer than the averages we had last year? Is it cooler than the averages of last year?
I don't know - and I think personal preference comes in to play in answering such questions as some people like warmer weather and others like it cooler.
My biggest problem with all the hysteria from the "we must do something now before all our cities are under water" crowd, is that they assume that maintaining the temps as they are today is ideal.
I'm not saying I'd like glaciers back in the Great Lakes area, but one, two or even five degrees warmer wouldn't upset me that much. (That being said, we can still conserve energy and be good to our environment, but we can balance such efforts with life in general.)
And, if we are supposed to do something to prevent the earth from getting warmer, are we then assuming that we will do something when the earth starts to get cooler? Do we really think that we could stop an ice age, which is not outside the realm of possibilities in the future?
There just doesn't seem to be much common sense associated with the discussion.
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:51 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
So, "Al Gore is a bonehead..."
Oh, really? Aren't you the guy who assured us that George W.'s invasion of Iraq was justified because we had to find those WMD's before Saddam launched a nuke on DC??
Your credibility, Air Trainer, is nil.
posted by Man_with_the_muck_rake at 09:16 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
The only constant with respect to the environment is change. The truth is that we have no idea if this is a natural temperature fluctuation or not. In the grand scheme of things, even having accurate records from the last 10,000 years would only be a fractional representation. Demanding radical and expensive (in time, effort and potential as well as dollars) change with nothing more than a theory supported by anecdotal evidence is not prudent and smacks of a political power agenda.
That said, it would be irresponsible to ignore the possibility that we are capable of changing the climate in a way that negatively affecting us.
By the way, I always find it funny when people claim we're killing the planet. Even assuming the worst case global warming scenario, the planet will be fine. *We're* the ones who would be screwed.
-Dan
posted by photodan at 10:51 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
"negatively affects us", I mean.
posted by photodan at 10:53 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
i prefer to err on the side of caution
posted by upso at 11:01 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary
This a decent doc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag
posted by charlatan at 11:31 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
Junta, I should have been more clear. I'm saying that modern scientists can take old data sets and fit them into a current model by thinking carefully about the conditions by which the measurements were taken in their condition of previous ignorance. The "0.3°F fall in sample temperature due to evaporation" statement (which may be inaccurate from my memory) is just an example of how such data is treated to assure its validity. I never meant to mislead you or anyone into thinking "0.3°F" was some final result or something.
Overall, after the data is looked at in such critical ways, ocean temperatures have been rising since the Industrial Age and there's no rational argument to make otherwise. From the measurements, a global warming is very real. The real question is: Will this result in "Global Warming" or will it only result in "Global Climate Shifting"?
At any rate, those of you who are still interested should land that SciAmer article to see exactly how carefully and thorough have been our treatments of the data. The data simply isn't in question. The technical conclusions are also not in serious question. What remains is our confidence in extrapolating such results into the future.
posted by GuestZero at 12:33 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
It doesn't matter whose right really does it. If you add up all the dead that comes from burning carbon based fuels, we should already be on a racetrack to install technologies that don't involve burning carbon, both for transportation and for generating electric power in general. Bush's rollback of the clean air act, done with a simple non congressional , executive branch change of an administrative rule, is killing over 20,000 American men women and children per year. Thats just from the rule change on coal burning electric plants. Imagine how many per year die from all the rest of the pollutants these same plants put out. The consider the deaths from cars. If we had an executive branch that weren't all oil execs, perhaps they wouldn't have slashed the reseach budget for alternatives and efficiency standards. Maybe if Bush hadn't slased the federal alternative energy research and efficiency budges, in his first week of his first term in office, maybe something would be even better than oil, and available right now. Maybe right now we would be installing solar photovoltaics at 200 the rate they are installing them in Germany. Germany is the world leader in solar cell production and they install half their production in Germany. They are also going gangbusters for wind turbines.
The point is, we have the technology to stop burning about 60-80% of the carbon fuels we now burn. For human health considerations we should do just that.
Battery technology is approaching the point where the new nano-produced lithium ion batteries can charge 80% in one minute, cary many times more electricity in the same size an weight battery. Combine that with Avery Lovins claim that he can make lightweight carbon fiber auto bodies faster, cheaper, lighter and STRONGER THAN STEEL, and it seems clear that we are on the cusp of having an electric car that is stronger, better, faster, with the same range as a gasoline powered car. Will the electric grid be ready to take on the extra load of millions of people plugging in their cars at 5pm when they get off work? NOOOOOOOOOOOO So we should be declaring war on our own use of oil for that reason also. What I mean is that if we dont have an alternative infrastructure already built by the time the electric cars arrive, our governments will go for the quick fix and they will invite coal and nuclear into our air and our water and our lives to make the electricity to charge the vehicles.
Ohio has the same solar potential (sunshine) as Germany. So are Germans that much smarter than us, or is it that the corporations outright own our elected officals???
posted by prime3end at 01:31 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
We could argue about global warming (happening or not? our fault or not?) and Gore (bonehead or not?) until blue in the face but the bottom line is - it's better for our own health (and the health of our kids) to pollute less.
As far as I know, clean water is not a renewable resource and the trees don't grow overnight so I'd rather like to keep the water and trees around for my kids too.
I also prefer making choices that are less harmful to the environment and being less wasteful in my daily life.
If Gore has been intentionally twisting the truth then I totally agree that it's not right. But at least he is making people think about the environment, making them realize that by doing small things we can make a big difference.
posted by memoo at 02:44 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
I hate being a party pooper, but I am old. And I never have enjoyed winter in Ohio. So warming is good. Unfortunately by the time winter disappears in Ohio I will be a million years old.
posted by bill at 03:13 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
I agree Bill.
prime3end - In the 70's, I believe there was a rotary engine (called the Whanko?) that got about 60 miles per gallon, and the oil companies squashed it. They also have alternatives, that the oil companies also squashed. If you're going to bitch about it, bitch to the right people - the oil companies.
posted by starling02 at 04:55 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
Well starling02, I usually agree with your thinking, but I think you're a little off on this one. The engine was a Wankel. The thing got about only 40 mpg. The oil companies didn't kill it, it's still around but the thing couldn't keep rotor seals in and the power amd mileage dropped off dramatically.
Maybe the oil companies are making billions, but they're pretty large. They still make only around 15 to 18% profits. Who would want to invest money in any business for much less. if they dropped profits down to around 10% they wouldn't have any stockholders. Heck I'd have to get a horse.
posted by AmericanPie at 07:04 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
Besides hydro-electric, there isn't yet a clean alternative means of generating power that doesn't have serious drawbacks such as poor efficiency or extremely high operational costs.
Toledo is actually a player in the development of Solar technology with First Solar being based here and UT's Photovoltaic Innovation and Commercialization Center.
-Dan
posted by photodan at 08:28 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
I don't think the question is if global warming is real or not. We are getting warmer. The question is if man is causing it, and will it be bad for us, and can we contain it, or reverse it? One interesting fact---there is far more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the past 650,000 years. If you look at graphs that chart temp and CO2, you'll see there is a strong correlation (I realize it's still not causation). But in the past it's usually a rising temp that precedes rising CO2 levels. Now, we've spiked CO2 levels before the temp rising. IF temp follows this spike, it could be really bad for us. I think part of the point of Gore's book, is that there are many who deny the science because of their political ties or business connections. There is little debate among most scientists over global warming. The real debate seems to be between scientists and conservative think tanks (funded by the likes of Exxon and such).
Unrelated question--did anyone else think it was weird that it didn't snow until January last winter? That's the only time I ever remember that happening around here...
posted by Chris99 at 08:57 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
The Germans are no smarter or dumber than we. They simply have different priorities. By examining their culture and from speaking to an American living there for years, I can only conclude that their priorities are far more socially responsive than ours. In America, money rules nearly every consideration, which is why we're losing our ability to regulate business, and which is why fraud and mis-investment are such problems. We've prioritized the generation or movement of money over even very short periods of time. The Germans aren't so focused on profits.
This is not to say we don't apply regulations. On the contrary, we mis-apply them too often. Combined with this overdrive for profits is a legacy regulatory apparatus which should have been more sensibly overhauled in the Reagan Era (if his class of person weren't so caught up in economic brinkmanship). Just like Reagan, Bush II has also wasted a position of significant political power in order to pursue wasteful Neo-Conservative philosophies instead of FINALLY correcting the intrusive and expensive American body of regulations.
We're not under- or over-regulated. We're WRONGLY regulated. So we end up with small businesses being busted out of the economy while major players are given free passes to nearly whatever they wish. (Hmm ... strange, this sounds like Toledo!)
If the Dems get their leading corporate whore in office in Jan 2009, I'm sure the desire to fix our regulatory apparatus will disappear once more and the profit overdrive will once again wash over any attempt to form renewable energy sources. Our "Hyper-Capitalism" will never act in our best social interest since you can't put a meter on the sun or the wind.
posted by GuestZero at 11:30 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 01, 2007 #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Wind's long-term theoretical potential is much greater than current world energy consumption. The most comprehensive study to date[42] found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW (~54,000 Mtoe), or over five times the world's current energy use and 40 times the current electricity use. The potential takes into account only locations with Class 3 (mean annual wind speeds ≥ 6.9 m/s at 80 m) or better wind regimes, which includes the locations suitable for low-cost (0.03–0.04 $/kWh) wind power generation and is in that sense conservative.
If you've ever been sailing or in a storm, wind is pretty powerful.
I'm surprised new homes don't have some renewable energy devices included that could be mortgaged for 30 years along with the house.
posted by charlatan at 12:12 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
Considering the basic costs of such devices, there's no need to mortgage them so outrageously. There's no reason except control and greed as to why a home wind turbine (probably the upright-rotor kind for public safety in neighborhoods) can't be installed for less than $3500. The footprint of the tower can be reduced by relying upon the existing home structure (which is a solid 20-40ft of rise to which a 60ft tower can be firmly attached), so there's really no reason to hold to building codes that restrict such towers.*
This kind of system can be made cheaply by having a minimal or no storage system since it would largely feed back into the grid through your home meter, and on a windy day with little usage inside, you'd get to come out and watch your electric meter run backward. This can work since the economic argument here for energy is largely an accounting exercise.
That kind of economic arrangement should work just fine for a while, during the ramp-up phase where the generators range from an extreme minority (<1%) and mature into a lesser minority (~15%). The electric company (forced to take the generated power at market rate) can adapt to the new and expanding regime of distributed generation. Within 20 years, the utility would then face an economic crisis and will have to have further regulatory changes enacted ... which may be as simple as dropping the charge-back rate so the utility buys the homeowner-generated power cheaper. A new type of electric meter will probably have to be used, that keeps utility and homeowner supplies separated. Everyone will still win, even the utility's investors.
Still, there are remarkable and artificial barriers to the dream of distributed and renewable generation of electric power in an urban area. I'm surprised "we the people" were able to get regulatory changes enacted that forced utilities to buy our home-generated power at market rates.
* The tower issue can be crucial. Generally, the speed of the wind is a function that varies as a square of the height of the tower. Hence, a 120ft tower should catch about 4 times as much wind as a 60ft one, which suggests it should generate 4 times as much power. However, 120ft towers in suburbia is a bit too much to manage. 60ft is probably the most we should risk, building-code- and zoning-wise, in Toledo's cramped neighborhoods. Larger spreads of property should be allowed higher towers in a rough proportion, and office and factory buildings should be able to follow standard aerial codes for their own turbine applications.
posted by GuestZero at 04:26 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
"In Denial" might be an appropriate term for many of those who have commented here.
It is funny [in a maudlin way] to read comments of denial from folks with both little scientific background as well as an agenda of their own.
That mixture has gotten us into quite a few messes in this nation over the years.
posted by Man_with_the_muck_rake at 07:30 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
"In Denial" might be an appropriate term for many of those who have commented here.
It is funny [in a maudlin way] to read comments of denial from folks with both little scientific background as well as an agenda of their own.
For example? Please be more specific. Thanks
posted by Offshore at 07:43 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
I can't let a discussion of global warming pass without my two cents.
I agree with Maggie. The globe warms. The globe cools. The globe shifts land masses. Seas rise and fall.
How can any of us be absolutely sure of the affect man has on any of that? Yet if one questions climate science, then he is an oil-addicted ostrich with his head in the sand.
posted by ChiliDog at 09:58 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
First the guy who wrote the article - JAMES M. TAYLOR is from a Heartland Institute a think tank funned by Exxon Mobil. Hardly an unbiased observer..
This is why science get's it's ass kicked. Scientists, think - WWF, NASA and university professors not noted for being well funded or great public speakers - have to go up against well funded, slick lawyers like Taylor.
This is exactly what Gore was talking about... Taylor is a lawyer who cherry picks some studies to make a point to push his and his bosses scientific agenda and stifle debate.
Just look at Taylor's first calm - Himalayan glaciers -
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Unfortunately, or fortunately for Taylor, the AMS article is subscription only, but from the article's abstract shows: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3860.1
The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas. This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe.
Taylor basically cherry picked (or miss quoted) a single line out of an obscure journal to make his point and push his agenda.
Himalayan glaciers 'melting fast' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4346211.stm
In a report, the WWF says India, China and Nepal could experience floods followed by droughts in coming decades.
Mountain climate change trends could predict water resources - http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/content.phtml?ref=1156409891
New research into climate change in the Western Himalaya and the surrounding Karakoram and Hindu Kush mountains could explain why many glaciers there are growing and not melting.
The findings suggest this area, known as the Upper Indus Basin, could be reacting differently to global warming, the phenomenon blamed for causing glaciers in the Eastern Himalaya, Nepal and India, to melt and shrink.
Global Warming Imperils Himalayan Glaciers, Experts Say - http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSPEK8597720070423?feedType=RSS
BEIJING -- Global warming could wipe out large areas of glaciers in the Himalayas and surrounding highlands, threatening livelihoods across much of Asia, climate scientists said in Beijing on Monday.
Rising temperatures fuelled by greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture have already shrunk glaciers on the mountains dividing China and South Asia, experts say.
Some Glaciers Growing Due to Climate Change, Study Suggests - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers.html
Some glaciers in Pakistan's Upper Indus River Basin appear to be growing, and a new study suggests that global warming is the cause.
The glacial growth bucks a global trend of shrinking ice fields (photos: melting glaciers) and may shed light on the regionally varying effects of Earth's changing climate.
Not nearly as cut and dry as Taylor would have you believe... you have google, read for yourself people.
About Heartland:
19 South LaSalle St., Suite 903 Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-377-4000
Founded in the early 1990s, Heartland Institute claims to apply "cutting-edge research to state and local public policy issues." Additionally, Heartland bills itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market movement." http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=HEA100
The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007, www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters. The Heartland Institute networks heavily with other conservative policy organizations, and is part of the State Policy Network, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of 4/04), and co-sponsored the 2001 Fly In for Freedom with the Wise Use umbrella group, Alliance for America. Heartland also co-sponsored a New York state Conference on Property Rights, hosted by the Property Rights Foundation of America. The Institute puts out several publications, including "Environment & Climate News" which frequently features anti-environmentalist and climate skeptic writing. They also published "Earth Day '96," a compilation of articles on environmental topics. The publication, distributed on college campuses, featured "Adventures in the Ozone Layer" by S. Fred Singer, and "the Cold Facts on Global Warming" by Sallie Baliunas. The articles denied the serious nature of ozone depletion and global warming. Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/363/309/2005-363309812-0295fbb2-9.pdf The Heartland Institute formerly sponsored and hosted www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section.
posted by SensorG at 09:59 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
SensorG...since you mentioned NASA, let me offer this perspective from the NASA chief, as reported by NPR:
It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming?
I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say.
Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?
I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.
posted by MaggieThurber at 01:21 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
PhotoDan said
"That said, it would be irresponsible to ignore the possibility that we are capable of changing the climate in a way that negatively affecting us.
By the way, I always find it funny when people claim we're killing the planet. Even assuming the worst case global warming scenario, the planet will be fine. *We're* the ones who would be screwed.
-Dan
Actually Dan, science tells us we won't be screwed. Science tells us we are the product of evolution. So if science is right we will evolve to adapt to all the changing climate conditions.
It was science that got us into this mess and it's science that'll get us out.
Isn't science wonderful! ALL HAIL SCIENCE!
posted by MikeyA at 01:29 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
I'm curious to know how many trees were killed to create Mr. Gore's book.
Had he made it available only as an e-book then exactly zero trees would have died.
posted by MikeyA at 01:30 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
Maggie,
NASA Chief Michael Griffin is an Bush appointed political hack and a joke.
From Think Progress
Griffin’s remarks were stunning, coming just days after his own agency released a report warning of the “disastrous effects” of climate change. NASA quickly tried to avert some of the criticism of Griffin’s remarks by lamely blaming NPR for asking questions that were too tough:
"NASA spokesman David Mould said the NPR interviewer was trying to push Griffin into saying something about global warming. NASA’s position is that it provides scientific data on the issue, but policymakers decide, he said.
The White House’s science adviser Jack Marburger also tried to dismiss Griffin’s ignorance, insisting the NASA administrator was joking:
“It’s pretty obvious that the NASA administrator was speaking about his own personal views and by no means representing or attempting to represent the administration’s views or broader policy,” Marburger said. “He’s got a very wry sense of humor and is very outspoken.“
But scientists are not taking lightly the fact that Griffin, the head of NASA doesn’t understand the seriousness of global warming, with some calling on him to resign. Some reactions:
James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist: “It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement. It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”
Michael Oppenheimer, Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University: “It’s astounding that the head of a major U.S. science agency could hold such attitudes — basically ignorance about the global warming problem. It’s so astonishing that I think he should resign.”
Gavin Schmidt, NASA climate scientist: “Griffin’s comments seem surprisingly naive. We are not in a situation where we are shopping around for an ideal climate, but that we have adapted to the climate we have, and that therefore large changes to it are not likely to be beneficial.”
Berrien Moore, Director of the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire: “I don’t understand it. I’m really stunned he would say something like that. I mean, I just really find it shocking.”
posted by SensorG at 01:43 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
Mike - because you asked... No trees were harmed; Gore you recycled paper.
http://www.honorearth.org/whatsnew/nativeenergy.htm
WITH its flowcharts and glossy photos of wilderness and industrial blight, the companion volume to Al Gore's environmental documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is basically a Power Point presentation on paper. Appleton Green Power Utopia 80# Matte, to be precise, a recycled paper with a sanctimonious name befitting a book that also says it's — brace yourself — "carbon neutral," the first book ever to offset 100 percent of the carbon dioxide generated in publishing it.
Gore's publisher, the gardening and health giant Rodale, took steps to use carbon offsets, a system by which you help finance the production of relatively clean sources of energy to make up for the less clean sources you've relied on. While "carbon neutral" may be a stretch, Rodale said the offsets would go toward three renewable energy projects run by NativeEnergy, "a privately held Native American energy company," which estimates that 37.5 tons of carbon dioxide were generated in the production of the book's first edition, including the use of office machines and lights, printing equipment, and the trucks used to transport the book to distribution centers. The book is No. 2 on the paperback best-seller list, with 225,000 copies in print. (Paramount Classics also used carbon offsets for some of the energy used for the documentary.)
posted by SensorG at 01:48 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
NativeEnergy, "a privately held Native American energy company," which estimates that 37.5 tons of carbon dioxide were generated in the production of the book's first edition, including the use of office machines and lights, printing equipment, and the trucks used to transport the book to distribution centers.
Thank you Sensor.
One question.... how much carbon dioxide would have been generated in publishing it only via e-book?
posted by MikeyA at 01:51 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
SensorG...way to attack the messenger instead of the message...btw, the NASA chief got in trouble with Bush for what he said...how does that make him a hack?
The point is that we're pretty arrogant if we think that we can impact the natural tendencies of the planet to warm and cool. I'm not saying our actions are irrelevant or that we shouldn't try to be good stewards of our planet, because we should do what we can...but thinking we're going to stop global warming is as logical as thinking we're going to stop global cooling or the next ice age.
At some point, we must realize that for everything we do, there is a tradeoff. Understanding the tradeoffs of addressing our impact on the temperature of the earth is where we should be focusing - instead of this hysteria-laden 'if-you-disagree-with-me-you're-insane (or evil or a ... a REPUBLICAN!)' mentality that has no tolerance for someone with a different perspective - or even a probing question.
posted by MaggieThurber at 02:12 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
The problem with global warming is measurement. There's too much variation in weather, natural phenoms, solar activity, computer models, China / India, and time.
If weather is driven by variation - it is logical to state as one area gets warmer, another get colder.
This further goes to stand if 3/4 of the planet is covered by water - how accurate are our data points?
What about volcanos? They say Mt. Pinatubo threw up more pollution during its last eruption than the history of the automobile. What's the carbon offset for Mt. St. Helens?
Solar Activity. Do the Al Gores of the world believe the sun stays the same temperature forever? What impact does solar storms / surges have on our planet? Does the earth orbit the sun they same distance every second of a human lifetime?
Computers are poor models. To simulate a rise in global warming, you first have to have a baseline. An average temperature for the entire planet is like calculating the average currency exchange rate for the global economy. Go for it.
China and India: How come the environmental-wackos don't go and try to destoy these two economies. Al Gore should be over in China now since they have overtaken the U.S. in supposed pollution output.
Time. Geologic time is differnt than historic time. We simply don't have any significant data covering a global span over reliable period of time.
In the end I find it humourous weather has become political and angry that people want to re-distribute wealth, lifestyles, and freedom based on emotional data points. Over 99% of every specie has gone extinct on this planet, enjoy the global warming now before the global cooling starts in the next 10 years.
posted by brassmonkey at 02:13 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
I don't claim to be science smart - but seems to me, the Earth has been experiencing climate changes since time began - thus, the Ice Age. Seems like 'Much Ado About Nothing' to me.
chris99 said that there's more C02 now than there has been in the past 650,000 years. Well, that makes some sense to me - there's more people on the Earth than there's been in the past 650,000 years. Here are 2 potential solutions - 1)Everybody take a deeeeep breath & hold it.......NOW & forever. 2) Exterminate everybody.
Simplistic, I'm sure. And I'm sure I'm missing some critical parts and/or information. But everytime you breath, you produce C02.
posted by starling02 at 02:14 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
Going green can only help matters - whether you want to believe in global warming or not. It's common sense. It's like the people that drive by a recycling bin every time they go to the store and never use it. Common sense.
posted by Ryan at 02:36 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
That's true Ryan but the problem is there are people like Al Gore who lead an extravagant lifestyle because they have means and expect the average folks to make changes when we have none.
The point is about practicality. Gore can write all the books make all the movies he wants but he won't amount to a hill of beans unless the average person can see a direct impact.
It's happened in other aspects of society. The residents of New Orleans were given money to update their levee system. They didn't see the impact. They built a football stadium. I'm sure if they were given the same money next year they'll rebuild the levee's because now they can see an impact.
posted by MikeyA at 03:41 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
It's like the people that drive by a recycling bin every time they go to the store and never use it.
I've had people tell me that the benefits of recycling are a big myth. (One of whom used to work at the EPA headquarters.)
According to this person, the only thing it makes sense to recycle is newsprint and aluminum. The recycling of glass and plastic (supposedly) burns more energy and causes more damage to the environment than just throwng it away to begin with. He also said that half the stuff we recycle ends up getting hauled from the center to the landfills anyhow, b/c the centers don't have the capacity to process it all.
It sounds counterintuitive to me, and I admit that I still recycle glass and plastic just in case. But, I have to admit that hearing those statements from someone who is pretty knowledgable about the subject at least gave me something to think about.
posted by mom2 at 04:09 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
Mom2's example of recycling is a good one toward my point.
Recycling didn't necessarily catch on for about ten years. Some argue it's still trying to catch on. The reason is because initially it's hard to get someone to change their life especially to affect a change that's not in a forseeable future.
Governments pushed recycling by limiting the number of garbage bags which pushed recycling into more of a practical application because while I might not believe or see global warming as a threat I can see my garbage piling up as a threat.
My point is that people like Al Gore and the Cheryl Crow's out there need to push more practical means if they really want to make a change. They don't. So I'm more inclined to believe they're just trying to do what they do best... make headlines, nothing else.
posted by MikeyA at 06:17 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
"Actually Dan, science tells us we won't be screwed. Science tells us we are the product of evolution. So if science is right we will evolve to adapt to all the changing climate conditions.
It was science that got us into this mess and it's science that'll get us out.
Isn't science wonderful! ALL HAIL SCIENCE! "
I believe science tells us that evolution takes place over an extremely long period of time. (somewhere between 15 minutes and a million or so years) *If* the dire predictions for global warming are true, we may not quite have that much time.
-Dan
posted by photodan at 06:22 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
I'm still waiting on a scientific study refuting the IPCC's work, or Al Gore's work. Most of the debate seems to be coming from conservative think tanks, funded by oil companies.
chris99 said that there's more C02 now than there has been in the past 650,000 years. Well, that makes some sense to me - there's more people on the Earth than there's been in the past 650,000 years. Here are 2 potential solutions - 1)Everybody take a deeeeep breath & hold it.......NOW & forever. 2) Exterminate everybody.
I don't quite think that's what scientists have in mind. I believe it's more due to burning of fossil fuels, and the effects of industrialization.
posted by Chris99 at 09:39 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
If Gore was adament about Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming, he would do what the French do, advocate for building more nuclear power plants.
posted by brassmonkey at 10:05 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
Gore should also be advocate of banning empty TARTA buses.
posted by brassmonkey at 10:09 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
It's June, it's been cold, where's all the huricanes? I guess it's time to fire up my weber and release 650,000 years of more carbon into the atmosphere.
posted by brassmonkey at 10:15 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 02, 2007 #
If I refuse to believe all the stuff that you'd have to take on blind faith to believe in global warming, does that make me a G.W. Athiest?
posted by billy at 06:16 A.M. EST on Tue Jul 03, 2007 #
Chris,...if all conservative think tanks are funded by 'big oil' are all liberal think tanks funded by 'radical environmental groups?'
If the think tanks that get some of their funding from oil companies can't be trusted because of the source of their funding, why would we trust the think tanks that get some of their funding from environmental groups, who also have their own agendas?
(guess I'm on a double standard kick this week...)
:)
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:08 A.M. EST on Tue Jul 03, 2007 #
"big oil" funding the conservatives. How 'bout Mr Gore's connection with "Big Tobacco?"
"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands I put in the plant beds and transferred it! I've hoed it! I've chopped it! I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it!" Al Gore to North Carolina primary voters during his campaign
posted by billy at 08:47 A.M. EST on Tue Jul 03, 2007 #
Maggie,
There are issues that are conservative think thanks verses liberal think tank. Most of them revolve around economic issues.
With global warming however, its scientist verses conservative think tanks. I’m not saying some liberal think don’t weigh in, but for the most part its science verses slick big money think tanks.
When I say science I mean NASA,WWF, Universities (Harvard, UM, OSU). If the think tanks wanted to fund their own unbiased research I’d be for it, but all they do is cherry pick and distort.
They write articles like the one that started this tread that are so egregious and biases that it makes my head hurt. The articles get circulated and circulated till others are quoting them and it almost becomes fact. When in reality they have it completely backwards.
posted by SensorG at 09:06 A.M. EST on Tue Jul 03, 2007 #
Chris,...if all conservative think tanks are funded by 'big oil' are all liberal think tanks funded by 'radical environmental groups?'
I don't personally think that "liberal" think tanks play a big part in this. I guess I was referring to the so-called "debate" of global science. Whereas most scientists would agree on the work done by the IPCC (for example), most of the dissenters appear to be conservative think tanks (Cato, Heartland, etc..) who get funding from companies that may be hurt financially if the burning of fossil fuels is curtailed. I think actual debate would hold more merit, if it was coming from a peer-reviewed scientific study rather than some guy from the Heartland Organization (or whatever they are called).
posted by Chris99 at 09:10 A.M. EST on Tue Jul 03, 2007 #
Mom2 - A big reason I recycle everything is the landfill issue. Plastic bags take 50 years to decompose, that's scary. I save all mine and give them to a local carry out. I have no facts about how much damage is done by burning recycled glass, but it just makes sense (to me) that it is best to “re-use” what already exists as opposed to always creating new product.
I draw the line at ABC gum, though.
posted by Ryan at 09:41 A.M. EST on Tue Jul 03, 2007 #
SensorG and Chris - have you read Crichton's State of Fear? It's a good read, but he provides a bibliography for all his referenced 'real-life' statements.
I think, though a work of fiction, there's a lot of truth in the book and would be interested in your perspectives...
posted by MaggieThurber at 10:24 A.M. EST on Tue Jul 03, 2007 #
additionally, I understand the point you make about the conservative think tanks.
And, while it might not be liberal think tanks doing the promoting, I think that scientists who receive grants for their research from environmental groups should be as suspect as think tanks or scientists who receive funding or grants from industry.
I'd like peer-reviewed scientific study as well...perhaps all the people, organizations and businesses interested in this could pool their monies and ask scientists to do the research and make recommendations without any 'outside influence'?
nah...that makes too much sense...
posted by MaggieThurber at 10:30 A.M. EST on Tue Jul 03, 2007 #
SensorG and Chris - have you read Crichton's State of Fear? It's a good read, but he provides a bibliography for all his referenced 'real-life' statements.
No, but everything I know about the Catholic church and Jesus I learned from the Da Vinci Code. :)
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
posted by SensorG at 10:37 A.M. EST on Tue Jul 03, 2007 #
that's funny, SensorG...thanks for the laugh!
posted by MaggieThurber at 11:39 A.M. EST on Tue Jul 03, 2007 #
Maggie,
The planet would take a lot of time to stop global warming. But if our corporate controlled government (big oil, big weapons, big money) have their way, their will never be any action taken. The earth is warming. If even the modest predictions by SCIENTISTS(not oil hacks) are true, a billion people will lose their homes and businesses. We have one chance to decide to either do this experiment (while saving lives with cleaner air), or we can be incredibly arrogant, and keep on doing what we are doing. The stupidest thing I can imagine, is to keep on killing our children with filthy air. Everything is not a "trade off". Everything is however corrupted by corporate governance of our country from top to bottom. Cities in Ohio are accostomed to selling human health to air polluters. The technology exists to insist on much cleaner air from coal burning, for instance at the proposed coke plant. So our corporate governor rolls back the achievable requirements of the coke plants previously strict air pollution permit. (though the budget amendment). Both parties are bought and paid for, and the citizens have neither governor nor representation at any level.
posted by prime3end at 05:36 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 04, 2007 #
Prime3end - at least six other people on this thread have said something similar to me - that the earth warms and cools...so why single me out for comment?
Besides, everything is a tradeoff. Tighter environmental controls in our country can lead to loss of industry to other countries with less restrictive regulations. So the trade off for better environments on a local level is a loss of such manufacturing facilities.
The U.S. can impose strict environmental controls, but the trade off is that we can still 'suffer' if other countries don't do the same. The Earth doesn't make distinctions based upon political boundaries drawn on maps.
If I chose to go to the movie theater tonight, I'll miss the fireworks.
Yes, there are always trade-offs. Some value certain things over others and are willing to bear the costs of such trade-offs. Some aren't.
p.s. I realize that you are very passionate about environmental issues, but you might want to cut down a bit on the hyperbole...
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:40 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 04, 2007 #
Maggie,
I wasn't singling you out for much more than the fact that you were an office holder and have influence and connections. Not picking on you. :-)
The trade offs are not unacceptable to me because I feel strongly about environmental issues. Thats not the reason. The trade offs are unacceptable to all people when they see the results... more kids with asthma, asthma deaths, more heart disease, more cancer. The American Lung Association is a responsible group. Yet they claim that Bush's rollback of the clean air act, using administrative rules, with no consent of congress, has been killing over 20,000 Americans EVERY YEAR (caps for emphasis only) since this was done.
When we burn coal, don't increase average car mileage, we are in the business of murder by consumerism. We need to make cleaning the air and water a vital and profitable part of American industry, and we will do well as a city, state, and country.
We need to slam the door on anything from countries like china that actually choose, like bush, to kill people with pollution to be more competitive.
Maggie, how is it that china has more say with legislators than the American public? How is that not corporate rule and the end of democracy of by and for the people?
posted by prime3end at 11:11 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 05, 2007 #
Prime3end...the key word there is "were"...I'm now a private citizen - even though, like others, I blog and contribute regularly to forums like these. I no longer have or even want the 'influence and connections' you attribute to me.
And I think the defeat of the most recent immigration bill shows that the American people continue to have their say with their representatives in Washington - when enough of them are motivated to so exercise said influence.
posted by MaggieThurber at 11:44 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 05, 2007 #
Prime3end,
You forgot to include Big Media in your rant and how they are guilty in promoting global hysteria on unproven root causes. Suggest you read a book on Historical Geology as well as Climatology.
On a side note:
Did you know the U.S. postal service delivers more junk mail than first class mail? Think about the energy that goes into printing, delilvering, and disposing of junk mail. And how many trees go into feeding daily newspapers when we could have electronic content? What about excessive packaging in retail? Why do we still need glass bottles for beer / wine and the extra energy associated to create and transport a heavier waste stream? Why do trucks and cars need to idle at untimed traffic lights when idling exhaust is less efficient and stopping and going chews up more energy?
Most importantly, why doesn't Gore promote nuclear energy and it's zero emissions if he is so concerned about greenhouse gases?
It appears there is more money in complaining about issues than actually doing something that is measurable.
posted by brassmonkey at 12:59 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 05, 2007 #
Hysteria sells. Y2K, bird flu, SARS, gun control, communism, etc. The people producing the hysteria usually have much to gain... wealth, power, importance...
I was watching CNN this morning and they were making fun of Toyota Prius drivers as being green snobs. Then a few minutes later a lake dried out in Chile that was attributed to global warming.
posted by charlatan at 01:33 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 05, 2007 #
Nuclear fuel making gives off 45% of the countries CFCs that pop continent size holes in the ozone. And of course they will store the waste in Ohio, a place where you can inject the most hazardous substances known to man into wells in the ground.
I doubt you have read as much about climate as I have. You seem to be of the mind that the answer you want to hear is and indicator of what is so. This isn't debate class, where if you can debate that bad is good and good is bad,, you win the debate. This debate is really about life and death for hundreds of thousands of Americans just from coal burning and auto emissions. We need to build solar farms and wind turbines that make the German efforts to do so look miniscule.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=22542
posted by prime3end at 05:11 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 05, 2007 #
Maggie,
I think the immigration bill lost because the republican party was splintered on the bill and the democrats wanted to make it, incredibly, more liberal. The will of the people would be to shut down the border, and evict the people who have broken the law and are invading our country, destroying medicaid, have taken over construction work in many southerns states, and stand to really wreck this country after all is said and done.
posted by prime3end at 05:15 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 05, 2007 #
Prime3end,
I don't know where you get CFC's from nuclear energy, but you're post is about greenhouse gases and accouding to this http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuclearenvissues.html , nuclear is the best source of energy when it comes to global warming issues. Wind and Solar can't produce the volume needed on a consistent basis to sustain our society. Besides, wind farms are now catching flack for killing large amounts of birds and bats as well as disrupting bird migratory paths.
Once again, Liberal Environmentals and Gore offer no practical marketplace solutions to their bitching, instead they contribute to more global warming by hosting global rock concerts.
posted by brassmonkey at 06:58 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 05, 2007 #
Prime3end,
Looks like the CFC cooling process will no longer be an issue with nuclear fuel http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050401/OPINION03/504010352/-1/OPINION
Nuclear....Energy that can be used during windless nights... year round for 300 million.... and without killing migrating birds.
I don't give a crap about global warming or cooling, and I don't think Gore does either.
But if I did, I would be upgrading our Grid and replacing old coal plants with nuclear power plants and advocating something that is real.
posted by brassmonkey at 07:25 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 05, 2007 #
Brassmonkey, you brouth up nuclear first I thought,,, whatever, its the making of the nuclear fuel for the reactors that makes the CFCs. They are apprently unregulated and don't really give a damn. You have to get this, we almost lost lake erie, AGAIN man. Nukes for profit don't work. Its sad when the French, who have a perfect nuclear record, have to come here , for decades, to do the work on our reactors. And when they or the NRC isn't looking, first energy lies about inspections for profit, and hammers employees who offer up safety concerns. Nuclear must stop being about profit first, it has to be about safety first because an accident will cause unthinkable amounts of damage both human and economic. Nukes are full of problems from the making of the fuel, to the dangerous greed based operation by greedy companies who paid off bush, to the disposal of the spent fuel, which nobody wants, which means it will end up in Ohio.
Thanks to the link to the nuclear power plant industry group. However, the link doesn't say that they aren't using freon, and failed to say how much they were releasing. They are on the books, or were before the pulicons classified everything, the worst CFC emitter in the country. It doesn't matter if they are getting it from old cars, they refuse to say how much gets away in the process. An industry trade group will swear under oath that dirt is really in fact a health food that should be considered a vegetable on the school lunch menu. The plant you speak of that won't use CFCs hasn't been built yet. The scores of reactors in this country that run with the same disregard for safety as Davis Besse, still run on a breakdown maintenance schedule and the Babcock Wilcox design is an accident that has tried to happen too many times. What about Fermi? What about Three Mile Island? Chernyoble? Luck is the only thing that saved us in some of these cases. Besse this time was luck, pure dumb luck that the incredible criminal neglect didnt kill a lot of people and make their drinking water undrinkable for a century or two.
The Germans differ with you on solar and wind. The peak energy use hours are during the day, when the sun shines and the wind blows. When it doesn't, turn on the coal, and the nukes.
What would you say if I told you there was an electric car that goes 0-60 in 4 seconds, tops out at 160 mph and looks nicer than a corvette, and has a range of 200 miles? www.teslamotors.com
They are expensive now, but next years model will be half as much, and the next year half again problaby.
My point is we will need HUGE amounts of electricity and grid upgrades if we are to facilitate millions of people plugging in their nano produced lithium ion battery banks in their cars. These banks can take on an 80% charge in one minute, a full charge in 15 minutes. We can start now making as many solar fields as we can, and as many wind turbines as we can plant. Or, we can let our governments panic and build nukes and coal power plants, and continue to level square miles of the Appalacian mountains, and literally destroy a mountain range, and keep us on time for a nuclear accident that shuts down that industry for good.
We have an obligation to build as much solar and wind potential as we can. Its Ohio's answer to the rust belt and being robbed by First Energy's rates. Perhaps you should read the Brookings report again.
posted by prime3end at 08:39 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 05, 2007 #
Prime, I don't think that I need to remind you that as Ohioans lost wealth and therefore political power, being robbed by a utility company became the status quo. The PUCO fairly blatantly operates as the advocate of First Energy, anyway. Just look at the "stranded costs" ongoing fiasco. Look at all the natural gas we now devote to running highly profitable generators during the heavily air-conditioned summer months. Look at the sheer intentional negligence in the 2003 blackout (which originated in Ohio). We almost had the worst nuclear accident in decades, at Davis Besse. Look at how reluctant the utilities are to install windmills. Etc. It's only going to get worse.
We may have a social obligation to develop and use solar and wind power in Ohio, but money and influence (i.e. political power) are aiming in the opposite direction. That's why I gave up on expecting government to do anything about that, and now expect individuals to invest in solar and wind systems themselves.
Alas, left to their own devices, Ohio homeowners largely spent themselves into huge debts, and built utility-dependent McMansions when possible, so a large shit was taken all over THAT particular expectation. A strong desire for independence should have overtaken Ohioans and led them to seek off-grid solutions for power and heat; what evidently occurred instead was a strong desire to be a slave to government, banks and utility companies.
posted by GuestZero at 01:09 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 06, 2007 #
GuestZero,
I agree very much! I've spoken with some of Ohio's utility "regulators". They are coal men. PUCO is the beaaach for all the utility companies, and so our the elected representatives mostly. As long as they keep getting their utility co. checks, free airplane rides, condo usage, etc, etc, their won't be substaintial alternative energy in Ohio. Nor will people who generate their own electricty receive more than the cost of generation after their meter spins backwards past zero usage.
I imagine a lot of them are being paid off overseas nowadays too. They have crafted some banking laws on Island nations that are good for hiding cash from the American people.
Reminds me of Haliburtons move overseas to Dubai,, they were only paying 15% tax on their 12 billion in government war contracts because they billed us from the island of Vanatu. Their most recent move was no doubt to avoid post-war criminal investigations and prosecutions. You can bet that Dubai isn't going to prosecute.
Government of, by, and for the people... ancient history, a rare and beautiful antique that we wish we had. Its better than living in Russia or China, but then again, our government seems hell bent on adopting their model of government.
posted by prime3end at 11:39 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 06, 2007 #
substaintial alternative energy in Ohio
There is a proposed bio-deisel and ethanol plant for east toledo/oregon right now.
posted by tm at 11:46 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 06, 2007 #
Ohio sits on a lot of coal, but it's too dirty, and it's too expensive to clean it, which is why so many mines closed 25+ years ago. But I've heard that one or two eastern Ohio mines have reopened in the past year or so, and the coal is being shipped to China. Ohio's future job growth will come from providing coal to other countries.
As to the ethanol plants and the wind propellers, they're token attempts at alternative energy to make it look like something is being done. These are "feel good" projects. It allows politicians to appear that they care about the environment. And how much of this ethanol fad is subsidized by the government? The cost of corn is rising.
Every year, more old homes add air conditioning. The wind propellers won't be able to keep up, except maybe in states like Ohio that loses population. In the western states where population is growing, dozens of new coal-fired powered plants are planned in order to meet the energy demand. These are higher-tech coal plants that are cleaner to the environment, but they're not as high-tech and as clean as they could be. Taking these new coal plants to the next level would increase electricity costs for the consumers. We could have clean energy from coal if people wanted to pay the price.
The governor of Montana has been pushing coal to liquid.
Jul 5, 2007 USA Today story:
"California's policy targets plants that would burn the West's abundant coal to produce electricity. The region has at least a 250-year supply of recoverable coal, according to federal estimates, concentrated largely in Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico and Colorado."
"Conventional coal-fired plants belch tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Technologies that pulverize coal, turn it into a slurry and convert it to gas before burning it have the potential to capture and dispose of carbon dioxide. Those technologies raise the price of coal-generated power by about 10% a kilowatt-hour."
"However, none of the 31 new coal-fired plants planned in the West, including at least 10 that intend to sell power to California, would employ those new technologies. Environmentalists worry about more than California. They predict the biggest resurgence in new coal plant construction in the region's history to satisfy Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver, Salt Lake City and other booming metro markets."
Dec 12, 2006 USA Today story:
"A much smaller group of utilities are building a new type of coal "gasification" plant that emits fewer pollutants and can be more easily retrofitted with equipment to trap carbon dioxide before it's released. Of roughly 150 coal-fired plants being proposed by utilities — what would be the biggest wave since the 1970s — only about a dozen are cleaner gasification plants."
The latest con state governments are selling to its citizens is that the future economy and job growth for the state rests in alternative energy technology. We hear this about Ohio. Guess what, that same line of crap is being sold by state governments in Michigan, Iowa, Tennessee, and other states. A whole bunch of states are claiming to be the leaders in alternative energy research. I guess trying to build their own Silicon Valley didn't work out, so it's on to something else.
April 2007 60 Minutes segment about France's nuclear energy program.
"When much of the world spurned nuclear power, 30 years ago, the French, being French, decided to go their own way and embrace it. Paris, the "City of Light," is lit by nuclear energy, which powers just about everything else in France: its homes, its factories, even its high speed railroads."
"Nearly 80 percent of the country's electricity comes from 58 nuclear power plants, crammed into a country the size of Texas. Pierre Gadonniex, the head "Electricite de France," the country’s national utility says it all began with a French obsession for energy independence."
In the U.S., a little over 50 percent of our electricity comes from coal. More from the 60 Minutes story:
"Because nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases, France has the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and because the price of oil is now around $60 a barrel, it has the lowest electric bills in Europe. In fact, France has so much cheap electricity, it exports it to its European neighbors. French nuclear plants supply power to parts of Germany, Italy and help light the city of London."
"[T]he rest of the world has taken notice. Nearly a dozen countries, including the United States, are either building or planning to build new nuclear plants, and some of that business will go to AREVA, the French government monopoly that controls every step of its nuclear industry from uranium mining to plant design construction to radioactive waste disposal."
"With zero green house gas emissions, the U.S. government, public utilities and even some environmental groups are taking a second look at nuclear power."
posted by jr at 03:00 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 06, 2007 #
Coal--I read somewhere that the carbon capture and storage method still emits more greenhouse gases than gasoline
posted by Chris99 at 04:46 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 06, 2007 #
coal gassification would produce a liquid fuel that has a cost of about $3,000 per gallon. Thats why the utilities are asking for scores of billions of dollars in state and federal aid to try to get it done. And, the Appalacian Mountain range will be gone by 2050 because Bush allows them to blow the top off the mountains now to remove the overburden to get to the coal. Cheaper than mining.
As I have stated, the French have a perfect nuke record, no accidents or releases. We on the other hand have companies that have nearly taken out large areas of the midwest and east coast of the united states. Wake up man.
The companies in Ohio and elsewhere who are trying to get new coal power plants built , have submitted their plans/ideas for the plant itself. NONE have submitted designs for the caron sequestration portion of the plant. They seem to be imlying now that the sequestration would come after the plant was built. Deep well injection of coal stack emission, would be done at extremely high pressures, pressures so great that the rock would dissolve, literally. Deep well injection of this type, and even smaller volumes, is known to cause earthquaqe faults to rock and roll. They don't want to do the expense of the injection even, which is an idiotic idea anyway. We put men on the moon, back when the country believed in science. Now the talliban right wing tells us they can't clean up coal stack emissions????? Bull****
posted by prime3end at 07:20 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 06, 2007 #
Prime, science is an impediment to political doctrine. We've fully entered the Imperial Age of the United States, hence the power of such doctrine is far more important to all the "important" classes and subclasses than the proceeds of science. (We can just get the proceeds of science from our economic slaves in China, Indonesia and Eastern Europe, anyway.)
posted by GuestZero at 10:37 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 06, 2007 #
TM said: «There is a proposed bio-deisel and ethanol plant for east toledo/oregon right now. »
The Ethanol Scam™ hardly bolsters confidence in a real development in alternative energy. The plants were largely pursued due to the wrong sort of capitalists, who from their greed haven't properly developed sustainable ethanol production ... since they're intercepting corn stocks, which anyone can note is supposed to be for FOOD. If we at least went with switchgrass as the primary source of feedstock for ethanol, we'd avoid using food (which raised prices due to shorting materials) and would also use land less suited for food in the first place. The re-use of land would compensate fairly well for the transfer of some food farmers to fuel farmers.
Ethanol's economic utility is also highly compromised with government subsidy (well, arguably we could say that for many farm programs).
If we had any sense whatsoever for sustainable economics and agriculture in the USA, we'd see a significant adoption of hemp and switchgrass, and more than a few attempts at utilizing the sugar crops like beets and cane. But no, no, we have large market slices of corn, which doubtless makes Monsanto happy. The crop base in the USA is too monolithic.
posted by GuestZero at 03:27 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 07, 2007 #
Wow! I'd totally forgotten about the Wankel engine! I remember the Chrysler Corp. Wankel 'dream' car they had years ago. that travelled the country. Back when I worked at DeVilbiss, we had one come in on the dock. I have no idea why we got it in, but I do remember that it disappeared. Rumor had it that it wound up in a go-kart or some RV. LOL
posted by Darkseid at 04:45 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 07, 2007 #
Don't get me started, GZ. You mentioned hemp. I can't believe I forgot to mention it. Again.
Hempoline.
The Economist magazine even mentioned hemp last month.
" “PLANS are afoot for a great expansion of the hemp industry.” So proclaimed the Department of Agriculture in its rousing 1942 movie, “Hemp for Victory”, which urged farmers to rally to the cause: “Hemp for mooring ships! Hemp for tow lines! Hemp for tackle and gear!” The plant's long, strong fibres twist easily into rope, which made it useful for parachute webbing. The war effort was imperilled when Japan's seizure of the Philippines curtailed America's supply."
"But despite the enthusiasm of wartime planners, hemp never took root (as it were). Taxes and regulations, introduced in 1937 but minimally enforced during the war, kicked in again during the 1950s. Hemp is a variety of the cannabis plant, which also produces marijuana—though industrial hemp has a much smaller concentration of the mind-blowing compound, THC, than the smokable stuff. America's puritans, not to mention nylon-makers, wanted production shut down."
"Nowadays farmers are banned from growing hemp without a permit from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which usually refuses to grant one. So many hemp products in America—food, lotions, clothing, paper and so forth—are imported from China or Canada, where farmers have been allowed to grow hemp commercially since 1998."
"Hemp grows so easily that few pesticides or even fertilisers are needed. “Feral” hemp is said to grow by the roadside in Iowa and Nebraska. Barbara Filippone, owner of a hemp fabric company called Enviro Textiles, says demand has rocketed—sales are growing by 35% a year. Nutiva, a California-based hemp company that sells hemp bars, shakes and oils, saw sales rise from under $1m three years ago to $4.5m last year. “Hemp is the next soy,” predicts John Roulac, Nutiva's founder."
"Hemp for Victory!" Can't we use that movie today? After all, we have some kind of war effort going on now, and we have energy dependence strife.
GZ hinted at one of the groups that would be opposed to the legalization of the industrial production of hemp: Monsanto. Growing corn and soybeans requires more chemical fertilizers than hemp. We can't allow farmers to grow something that would grow easier and be more productive and less harmful to the soil than corn and soybeans. That would make too much sense. But how do we know for sure without some honest research?
posted by jr at 08:00 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 07, 2007 #
Dark, the Wankel engine is used today for various purposes, but never saw significant market penetration due to the problem of keeping the engine properly sealed during its operation. The sealing problem has always bedeviled the engine and it always will, since it's unavoidable with the engine's physical form.
For giggles, you might look up the research in engine design that uses -- I joke not -- a circulating wall of water to form the "cylinder" where compression and combustion takes place. My point here is that given any real interest and investment in engines, we can come up with better things.
Heck, hybridization of our automobiles is obviously the best way to solve the transportation problem in America; once you tightly control the combustion process in a highly engineered turbine in the car, you can apply the resulting electricity to wheel motors and achieve impressive efficiency. The turbine doesn't need to be any larger in size than a football or two ... saving mass which can be devoted to industrial electric motors and regen-braking systems.
Of course, our beloved auto companies have extremely little interest -- and even less investment -- in alternatives to the gas or diesel combustion engines that power 99.9% of the world's automobiles. GM couldn't run fast enough to the junk yard to get its fully functional EV1 prototypes crushed.
This is the now classic problem of relying on the huge investment power of corporations who have no desire to actually invest. We're really only waiting for them to steal our money, effectively ... or to just die off in all their glorious lack of relevance.
posted by GuestZero at 09:00 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 07, 2007 #
Guestzero,
Good discussion regarding the imperial age of the U.S. Science is only important if it agrees with political doctrine, or Kool Aid drinking.
Good points on engines too.
posted by prime3end at 07:11 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 07, 2007 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
