TASSY P2P FORUMS

A different opinion on the root cause of climate change..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6900665.stm

I can't say I agree with his reasoning but I do think the author may have stumbled upon what could prove to be the best means of getting people to think about climate change and how they can actually do something to address it in the context of their own lives. If all it does is to get the guzzlers of all things planetary-unfriendly to reduce their consumption then the author's point of view is worth sharing.

Personally, I think that every nation on this Earth needs to halt what we're doing, work out how to undo the damage we've wreaked and then put it into practice on a global scale.

What do you think?

There are more enviromental opinion pieces in The Green Room which is part of the BBC News Web site

A diatribe by Liamee:

I am perhaps more cautious about our approach. I dont want to write a novel so to be brief. Just a few months ago they were blaming the mass exstintion of bees in NA on cell phone usage. Now they are thinking well, oops, seems it was an Asian parasite. It seems that carbon offset is just crap too: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290066,00.html . There is also some discussion about the carbon comsumption of the micros that consume a dead tree. Does a decaying tree release more carbon then it offset during its life time?

The Kioto Accord wasnt really about reducing carbon. Basically it was a global wealth sharing program. So if England is exceeding thier allocation of carbon then they buy carbon credits from another country that has excess credits. Did England reduce its emissions?

If the developed countries in the world stop using oil then the price of oil will drop probably from $76/barrel to under $20. This low price will enable poorer countries with less strick emission controls to consume the oil that was once being used by the more developed countries.

I believe in capitolism. I think that the Kioto Accord would have been better if all countries agreed to subsized the development of alternate fuels instead.

So many promising technoliges are out there. I am a supporter of hydrogen fuel cells. I think this offers the best chance of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. But, until this technology can be developed and marketed at a price point that developing countries would rather switch to it then buy cheap fossil fuels then I really dont see the short term point.

I also think that and exspanded use of wind power is in order. Ive made many changes in my habits in the last few years. I now have nothing but LCDs and Plasmas in the house. I use those micro floresent bulbs. Still using a CRT? Take a look at the power consumption vs an LCD.

I really want to see the world stop its depence on oil but primarily becuase Im tired of the middle east issues.

We are all old enough to have lived thru too many scientific mistakes. Remember when eggs were bad and margeine was good? In the 70's they warned of an upcoming ice age. Anyone heard of Allar? It was a pesticide used on Apples in the 1980's. Well some mouse got cancer and the entire apple crop rotted in the field. The next year the scientific community was like ooops. Sorry, we made a mistake.

All this said, I think that if the market leads the way it will succeed. If the governments lead the way it will fail.

Now, read my signature about my spellling

I agree with a lot of what you've written in your post.

I don't think we get a true picture of what science is pure hokum and what is not - at least not from the popular press who take learned articles and spew them out into short and often entertaining, opinion pieces.

It confounds me that the governments and industries who have the power to support the development and implementation of new, "cleaner" energy, continue to support the fuels that are damaging our world.

All of us have the power to choose whether our contribution to this world is a positive or negative one. I choose to make my contribution a positive one. If only our Governments would choose to do the same.

Gelf, I completely agree with you!

*faints*
Seriously, though, it's a topic that makes me feel quite cross. I can't understand why things are as bad as they are.

I think we give the press, in general, too much credit. When it comes to politics they all sway to thier side of the argument whatever that may be. When it comes to everything else they are people with deadlines. Generally they do, as little research and effort necessary in order to achieve the deadline.

And here I was thinking....

gelfling wrote:*faints*
Seriously, though, it's a topic that makes me feel quite cross. I can't understand why things are as bad as they are.

Do you want the long or short reply to this question? I'm feeling generous so you'll get both

Short answer: Money

Long answer: Special interest groups (namely petrochemical ones) have too much say in the matter. Look at the worlds wealthiest people...over 1/2 are rich because of....you guessed it, oil. Even our own President here in the US made his money in oil.

Food for thought: There are MILLIONS of "Flex-Fuel" vehicles on the road today. I live in "The Motor City"...there are 6 filling stations in the area that offer E85 (85% Ethenol/15% Gasoline blend) that can be ran in said flex fuel vehicles. 6...out of 1000's of filling stations in the area. The other edge to this sword is that only 15% of this type of fuel consists of gasoline. The remaining 85% is refined from corn....something that there are fields upon fields of here in the US. So if the majority of this product comes from a common plant, why is it only on average $0.25/gallon cheaper?

I work for Cummins...the diesel engine manufacturer. EVERY single one of the On-Highway (and most of the off-highway ones as well) are certified to run on biodiesel...which contains absolutely zero fossil fuel distilates. In fact, a 600 acre patch of land could support enough crop to annually refine into enough biodiesel to power every tractor trailer on the road....yet there are ZERO biodiesel filling stations within my immediate area. Once again, remember...I live in the "Motor City"...all 3 of the worlds largest auto manufactures are headquartered here...we are supposed to be on the "cutting edge of manufacturing technology"...buuuuuullshit.

If biodiesel and other biofuels ever caught on, a lot of wealthy government officials the world over would be in a world of shit. I just don't see these pompus asses voting themselves into the poor house anytime soon. The rich just keep getting richer.

Istik, I read an article where Australia had the cooldest winter in decades this year.

http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/07/14 ... -57-years/

And to the above. When the market demands it we will get it. I dont believe that 600 acres can produce enough fuel for every tractor trailer on the road. I'd like to see some supporting evidence please.

I saw we start a virus kill off half the world population and we will be ok for another 1000 yrs....
We can start with Australia...

gelfling wrote:...Personally, I think that every nation on this Earth needs to halt what we're doing, work out how to undo the damage we've wreaked and then put it into practice on a global scale.

What do you think?...

Well, the day Al Gore gives up his jumbo jet and his mansion for a grass-roof hut (as Bill Clinton recently suggested "we" do) as an example for us all, I might start taking the environment-related political posturing a bit more seriously. But I also remember not all that long ago similar alarmism being generated over the notion that pollution would trigger a new Ice Age. And how about all the hysteria over the 2005 northern-hemisphere Atlantic hurricane season? How inconvenient the truth that last year (and so far, this year) was abnormally slow for hurricane development. Must be awfully hard for Mr. Gore to live down, seeing as his publisher saw fit to create a photoshopped image of a hurricane emerging from a smokestack for the cover of his propaganda movie, so people wandering by the movie rack at Wal-Mart couldn't fail to grasp the intended association between the two.

Personally, I tend to think the Earth is far more resilient climatologically than the alarmists want us to think it is. But I am tracking the data (such as the debate over the accelerated melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps). I just wish the debate weren't being driven by political opportunists and "scientists" with questionable political leanings, and the "Watermelon Marxists" in the Green Party. (You know: green on the outside, red on the inside.) It makes it very difficult to know where scientific discussion ends and socialist agitprop begins.

EDIT: A contrarian suggestion can be found in a recent National Geographic article...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

...which was quickly followed by a counterpoint:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

This points up the debate over one of my current pet hypotheses: the possibility that climate fluctuation may be driven more by recurring phenomena like spikes in solar radiation (such as solar flares, which I remember hearing a few years ago were at a peak) or wobbles in our planet's elliptical path around the sun.

BeefieGoodness wrote:I work for Cummins...the diesel engine manufacturer. EVERY single one of the On-Highway (and most of the off-highway ones as well) are certified to run on biodiesel...which contains absolutely zero fossil fuel distilates. In fact, a 600 acre patch of land could support enough crop to annually refine into enough biodiesel to power every tractor trailer on the road....yet there are ZERO biodiesel filling stations within my immediate area. Once again, remember...I live in the "Motor City"...all 3 of the worlds largest auto manufactures are headquartered here...we are supposed to be on the "cutting edge of manufacturing technology"...buuuuuullshit...

Hmm... I find this 600-acre claim to be hard to believe also. Last I knew, there was a big debate brewing (excuse the pun) over the way diversion of agricultural output to ethanol would affect food prices. Basically, the argument is developing that Iowa's entire corn crop could wind up going into ethanol production. While the USA has vast excess agricultural production capability, the argument goes that a diversion that massive (Iowa annually vies with Illinois for top-corn-producer status) would cause a significant upsurge in food prices.

Alternative plants are being considered, such as (if I remember correctly) sawgrass, which grows well in semi-arid conditions, and could thus be profitably grown on lands currently not in use for food production.

But all that to raise the question: If ethanol production consumes resources on such a massive scale, how could a single square-mile plot produce enough biodiesel? And would biodiesel reduce the carbon emissions from the vehicles that use it?

Regarding Hurricanes, England has experienced these, along with Tornados and flooding on a scale that has the Weather men and women here calling it "wierd." We are not experiencing normal weather here at all. Winter wasn't normal, Spring wasn't normal and Summer certainly isn't normal. It's like a perpetual November with a few hot July days sprinkled in here and there. I remember real seasons and we haven't had these for some years.

I thought "An Inconvenient Truth" to be a good film and a good move but it did not scare me. It might have if I hadn't already seen live footage of the ice shelf melting just a month before I watched it. I share your feeling that the Earth is climatologically resilient but the cost to life on Earth is too high not to do something to halt the damage now. I believe Earth will recover and it seems she may recover by drowning us all with rain and sea water until we stop the harm.

I don't buy the solar argument at all and feel it amounts to distraction theory: Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

New Scientist has a list of what it considers to be myths about climate change: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

We know a few things for sure because we've recorded what happened. Volcano blasts cause changes in the weather and that extends to the temperatures. Volcanoes send out a cocktail of deadly chemicals and debris into the atmosphere. Dust storms travel around the world - we even get Saharan sand here in England! They too cause a change to our weather. We also know that pollution is worse when the sun is shining. Forgive me for any inaccuracy as I am writing this from memory, but iirc, when strong sun falls on exhaust fumes from motor vehicles, a reaction occurs that makes those fumes more toxic. So, the sun has a role in it but we are the ones putting this stuff into the air, land and sea.

The human race uses materials on a scale that is unmatched by any known species and what we don't use is pumped into the atmosphere or into the Earth and the water. What we don't use isn't something we can breathe in without causing harm - we don't recycle it because much of it can't be recycled and doesn't decay quickly and sometimes, even, safely. We burn oil plundering the Earth for more oil. We burn materials to make everything we use; we do the same to travel to work to use more energy in whatever job we do.

So, to me, the argument is simple: change the energy source and stop burning up and throwing away the things that send big foreign particles into the atmosphere and into the water. As someone else said in this article about A sunshade for the planet "...resistance by governments and special interest groups makes it quite possible that the actions advocated by climate scientists might not be implemented soon enough." Separating the science from the aforementioned groups is the difficult part.

Gelfling, the article you linked (EDIT: I mean, the original article at the start of this thread; you sneaked a response in, with lots of interesting material, as I was writing this -- /grin...) points to the chief concern I have with the whole environmental debate: my lingering suspicion that such issues are being seized upon by collectivists as a means to the real end: herding people into regulated lives.

It's also almost absurd that the article takes the angle of sexual competition as "the" driving force behind consumption.

It may be that my divorce finally soured me on the notion of earning a woman's approval, and thus the notion of conspicuous consumption as a means to that end repels me; but I found myself rolling my eyes as I read the article. That said, I can almost hear the environmentalists grinding their teeth over the lack of a viable market mechanism spurring people toward the "good" of environmentalism. I just hope they restrain their impulse to control other people enough that they don't start trying to control MY life, such as it is.

People have been herded into regulated lives for a long time but that's another debate.

Personally speaking, as a woman who is largely unaffected by "impressive" material wealth of the kind referred to in the original article, I found the piece a tad bemusing. I find the guy with the flash car, dressed like a fashion victim with hair to match and the big house a turn-off. That article along with some of the feedback comments, which you'll find below the story, amazed me because I honestly didn't know that real men and women went out of their way to buy status symbols to impress the opposite sex. I didn't know that it was a common thing to do and I don't mean that in the British way.

Give me a thoughtful, warm, intelligent man who recycles and looks after his health and that of the world he lives in over the guy with the fancy Mercedes (aka sofa on wheels) any day.

gelfling wrote:People have been herded into regulated lives for a long time but that's another debate.

Indeed. And the discussion of the extent of those intrusive regulations, and people's awareness of specific intrusions (which is often surprisingly low), and the sources of the intrusions, is an endlessly amusing diversion.

Ethanol and BioDiesel are not the answer. Replacing one polluting fuels with another isnt going to solved the problem. Ethanol reduces engine life and "gas" mileage. I really dont know much about BioDiesel but a quick search on Wkki and I wonder if the refirnery process might be worse then the benifts.

Environmental issues are my most moderate cuase. So simply using less by industrial countries will not result in a net reduction in oil consumption over the long term. Again, it costs $5.00 US per barrel to extract and ship crude oil. So thier is a profit to be made even at very low prices. If the price comes down then poorer countries will consume the oil that was once being consumed by moreindustrialized countries. Check out the polution problems in China and India as thier petrol cunsumption grows with lax pollution legistration.

People must demand the development of true alternative fuels that offer a compelling reason for all countries to switch. I truly would love to retire my gas consuming cars.

I think we are all in agreement about that, what differs is our approach.

dav4flynn wrote:...People must demand the development of true alternative fuels that offer a compelling reason for all countries to switch. I truly would love to retire my gas consuming cars.

I think we are all in agreement about that, what differs is our approach.

Well put, both here and in the rest of the post, which I left unquoted for brevity's sake.

I suspect a decent for-the-moment partial solution will be the development of workable hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles -- IF a solution to the devilishly difficult problem of on-board hydrogen storage and refueling tools for the consumer can be threshed out. Granted, it merely transfers the issue of CO2 emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack, but presumably if the emission of carbon dioxide can be confined to a relatively small number of large-scale sources, it would be easier and cost-effective to install containment technology (or production technology that pollutes less) at those sources than it would be to reduce emissions of CO2 at the consumer level. But at least on the consumer level, these vehicles offer the promise of transport that emits nothing more deadly than water vapor as its by-product. Which might increase the severity of London's pea-soup fogs, but that might be something the residents can live with.

BTW, thank you, Gelfling -- that article that collects the "myths" of Global Warming is quite handy. Nice to have a relatively large collection of articles analyzing each of the most common hypothetical causative agents of climate change in one location.

EDIT: Ding! Fifty posts! Is there a rank named "Blithering Idiot?" I wants it!

The 600 acre claim comes from a research paper I did...I'll be damned if I can remember where I got the info tho. Only reason I remember it is because it did stick out in my head was because the figure was so shocking.

As for biofuels not being a viable solution...take some things into account. First off, they are renewable. Granted, yes...we may have to dip into our corn crop...that happens to be government subsidised anyways because it's over produced. The "Oh no! all our corn will be powering cars" theory has already been disproven. It is a less polluting fuel (as are all types of alcohol vs. gasoline). It may not be the perfect solution, but I would much rather roll around with a tank full of booze than ride around with the Hindenberg in my trunk.

Sure the fuel economy isn't as good on ethenol, but look at it this way...it burns cleaner and could sell for under $1.50 with the same profit margin as gasoline. I could deal with 80% (rough estimate) the fuel economy if I'm paying 50% the price of gas. Especially knowing that the money will be going to a hardworking farm family here in the states vs. some overprivelaged shiek in the middle of the giant sandbox.

As for the refining of biodiesel vs traditional diesel...if you think the refining process of biodiesel is detrimental, look up the refining process for fossil fuels in general...and don't forget to take things like the Exxon Valdez running aground into account as well. Vegtable oil...not NEARLY as large of an enviromental nightmare.

It may not be the ultimate fix to the problem, but it is something that could be done today. The only real thing holding it back is infrastructure. There is no infrastructure for it because there is no monetary benifit for people put one into place. And when it all comes down to it, thats all that matters...money and personal gain. As long as there is cash to be made in fossil fuels, don't expect to see any real changes in the way vehicles are powered. We can specualte and debate all day, but at the core...that is the only solid given. Money talks. ...Kinda goes along well with the article :] Except I'm sure the motivation for these guys is more "sheer greed" than "impressing chicks".

I thought I stir the hornets nest one more time as I came across this article in local paper:

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.c ... &ran=49106

dav4flynn wrote:I thought I stir the hornets nest one more time as I came across this article in local paper:

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.c ... &ran=49106

Thats also corn in Virginia...Virginia is pretty hilly/mountainous and not the most ideal location for growing corn. Take a road trip thru Iowa...there are even a few towns there between the cornfields. Or Missouri...Northern Arkansas...Oklamoma. That whole belt there is nothing but corn...couple bean fields in there too...possibly a source of natural gas (Har har!).

This article concludes that it would take about 15,000 sq miles to produce enough bio fuels: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html


I really dont want to replace fossil fuel with another poluter bio disel. Read my above post where are reduce use of fossil fuel will not reduce the over-all burn of these fuels simply move the use from richer to poorer countries. Net result more polution.

I really like the thought of fuel cells. They already have containers for storage of the fuel that are far safer then gas tanks so I dont except the hindenberg argument. Seems the real draw back here is that platinum is a key componet. Worldwide platinum reserves would not come close to being enough to provide the resource necessary.

So, that leaves plug-in-cars. Of course lead acid batteries are not an option. Lithium base batteries are a better alternative. But that takes us back to original energy production. Nuclear plants in the US will probably never happen again. So that leaves coal and oil.

dav4flynn wrote:This article concludes that it would take about 15,000 sq miles to produce enough bio fuels: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html


I really dont want to replace fossil fuel with another polluter bio disel. Read my above post where are reduce use of fossil fuel will not reduce the over-all burn of these fuels simply move the use from richer to poorer countries. Net result more polution.

I really like the thought of fuel cells. They already have containers for storage of the fuel that are far safer then gas tanks so I dont except the hindenberg argument. Seems the real draw back here is that platinum is a key componet. Worldwide platinum reserves would not come close to being enough to provide the resource necessary.

So, that leaves plug-in-cars. Of course lead acid batteries are not an option. Lithium base batteries are a better alternative. But that takes us back to original energy production. Nuclear plants in the US will probably never happen again. So that leaves coal and oil.

Ok, I'll join in the debate.

First off the carbon offset thing was meant to be a capitalist way of controlling carbon, the idea was that polluting industries would prefer to invest in carbon reduction than to buy offsets at exorbitant prices, as to whether it was a workable idea, I don't know.

I too like the idea of fuel cells, but as you say the platinum problem, I would expect that technology will provide an answer to that fairly soon though.

Better in my opinion would be hydrogen powered vehicles, I actually drove a prototype hydrogen powered Series 5 BMW a while back (it was once around Goodwood race track) I have to say it was impressive , the problem I was told was twofold 1) Storage of the hydrogen 2) Filling the car.

I believe the evidence is in as to whether humans are major contributers to climate change, it does seem to me we have a choice, try and do something and hope its enough or forget about it and let our children and grandchildren worry about it.

I'll add something else.

IF climate change is real AND we do nothing then eventually the situation will resolve itself with the deaths of millions because of Drought, Flooding, Starvation, Resource war and Migration War.

The problem with this is the breakdown of infrastructure, there is debate as to whether 1st world counties can survive a breakdown of infrastructure, but that is another debate.

A bit off topic but...

I think we should not use alternate fuel sources or even our own coal and oil reserves here in the States. We need to suck every ounce we can from the middle east as fast as we can. In 20-30 years they will have their reserves exhausted and have no further means to fund terrorist. While in the mean time, here we can develop technology for alternate energy sources and still have vast coal and oil reserves that should last a hundred years or more.

As for the global warming, I think it's just part of the normal cycles the earth goes through nothing more. Look back through history and there is a clear pattern of warming and cooling.

swalmy wrote:A bit off topic but...

I think we should not use alternate fuel sources or even our own coal and oil reserves here in the States. We need to suck every ounce we can from the middle east as fast as we can. In 20-30 years they will have their reserves exhausted and have no further means to fund terrorist. While in the mean time, here we can develop technology for alternate energy sources and still have vast coal and oil reserves that should last a hundred years or more.

As for the global warming, I think it's just part of the normal cycles the earth goes through nothing more. Look back through history and there is a clear pattern of warming and cooling.

Agreed, but the timescales, usually the timescales are very long for this to happen, what is undeniable it it has happened very quickly therefore flora and fauna don't have time to adapt.

The other problem, is what if you are wrong?

If you are right then nothing happens and we carry on the way we are, if you are wrong and we do nothing what happens next, I'm sure you would be very sorry that you were wrong, but can we really take the risk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6926597.stm

Interesting article that further supports my argument

if the usa would drill alaska we wouldent need to depend on other countries for it so i say fuck the middle east and let them kill them selve and the the wourld pop will go down.

eirykhi wrote:if the usa would drill alaska we wouldent need to depend on other countries for it so i say fuck the middle east and let them kill them selve and the the wourld pop will go down.

I actually thought this would have been a viable strategy for post-Saddam Iraq. Kill Saddam, then pull back to a fortified site in the desert, and wait for the factions to bleed one another white, and THEN move back in.

To bad the world's major oil reserves aren't in Canada, Australia, or some other stable region instead of the middle east.