• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warming

a_unique_person said:
It is just saying, if the wealthy nations like the US want to continue to emit large volumes of greenhouse gases, they can, but they will have to pay for the privilege.
Click to expand...
And countries which emit almost as large volumes remain exempt, or have such huge populations of poor people who don't consume that much that their per-capita remains low enough to actully sell carbon credits.

My main objections to Kyoto is:
1) That it won't do very much about the problem it supposedly addresses.
Some current estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol will not provide a significant reduction in temperature despite the large cut in emissions. Because of this, many critics and environmentalists question the value of the Kyoto Protocol, should subsequent measures fail to produce deeper cuts in the future.
Click to expand...

2) It is unfairly economically biased against the US:
Each Annex I country has agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many countries have limits that are set above their current production. These "extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market. So, for instance, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their targets, to Canada for instance. This rewards countries that meet their targets, and provides financial incentives to others to do so as soon as possible:
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Kyoto is a step in the wrong direction.
 
Freakshow said:
Who are #'s 2 and 5 on the list of CO2 emitters?

Yes, the US is #1. But who are #'s 2 and 5?
Click to expand...

They aren't left off the list forever. The rationale was to do what worked before. The richest countries are the ones that can most easily cope with the changes, the poorest the least. The West, in general, is responsible for not just the present, but the many years leading up to hear. I see nothing wrong with it taking the lead in reducing emissions, Australia included.

You also fail to note that India and China, between them, have a huge percentage of the world's population. IIRC, about a third. Of course, in the long run, they would be expected to have the right to produce more CO2 than the US.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
Of course, in the long run, they would be expected to have the right to produce more CO2 than the US.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by saying, ”of course”? I don’t see why they should be allowed to produce more CO2 than us, that makes no sense.

Also, wouldn't it make sense that the poorer countries be expected to improve the most? Doesn’t less advanced technology produce more pollution? Isn’t that why the former Soviet Block countries fare so well under this treaty, because economic development since the collapse of the Soviet Union has already brought their emissions down well below 1990 levels?

No, I’m afraid I don’t see the logic at all in soaking the USA for this treaty.
 
The technology used in power generation from coal fired power stations is a relic of the Industrial Revolution. The US is not the only culprit in using this technology. Victoria in Australia is much worse, we use 'brown' coal, which is far more polluting, not even coal, and apparently can even be so wet it has to be heated before it will burn. Yet attempts to put up wind power sites results in a massive backlash?
 
a_unique_person said:
The technology used in power generation from coal fired power stations is a relic of the Industrial Revolution. The US is not the only culprit in using this technology. Victoria in Australia is much worse, we use 'brown' coal, which is far more polluting, not even coal, and apparently can even be so wet it has to be heated before it will burn. Yet attempts to put up wind power sites results in a massive backlash?
Click to expand...
Wow. Why did putting up wind power sites result in a backlash?

Although I am opposed to things that will have an impact on our economy, I am very much in favor for alternative energy sources. What's wrong with wind power? I'd like to see more research in using tides and waves to generate power, too.
 
Meanwhile, some think it's way too late.:
The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

..."Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."
Click to expand...
So why bother? ;)
 
a_unique_person said:
The coast is the best place, and IIRC, 90% of Australians live near the coast. The wind farms are going up, more slowly than they should be, and at political cost.
Click to expand...
I've read a little about research into using wave motion or tidal currents to generate power. Has there been any effort towards that in Australia? I would think that with so many living near the coasts, it could be technology worth researching.
 
Wind is easier, it's here, now, and it has apparently improved a lot. Noise, (the big objection), is much less, reliability is up. All we have to do now is make them invisible.

They do kill birds, but they learn to keep away.

Flannery also believes solar, (both photovoltaic and using the heat to generate steam), is viable.

He is also very much in favour of nuclear, which would instantly put him offside with a lot of environmentalists. He believes the technology now is much safer than it used to be, but that the old technology such as produced Chernobyl must not be used, and that a lot of the older US nuclear plants need to be retired.
 
I imagine we will slowly build a mix of alternative sources, but think carbon will be the backbone for some timr.

Wind is OK, but it is an eye-sore, takes up a lot of space and is unpredictable enough to require massive overcapacity and alternatives. So I don't think this will be the future, despite all the public money that is boosting its growth at the moment.

Solar is clearly the long term winner, but very inefficient still under preesent technology and only works on average 50% of the time.

Tidal sounds good as well. 24/7 highly reliable energy source (unless we lose the Moon). I don't know what exactly the challenges are here. It may need a lot of space, like wind.

Nuclear. clearly has to be part of the mix. Technology here now, 24/7 reliability. It is just a tad costly though - but not compared to the costs we are trying to mitigate against. Waste challenges are overhyped. Australia could form a booming market in storage, buried in inert materials in arid and geologically stable places hundreds of miles from anything.
 
I've got a better idea for energy. Let's use Stirling heat engines to harness the energy of GLOBAL WARMING! Then, we'll have an unlimited source of energy, won't we?

Or how about glacial/hydro/electric plants? We can use the water flowing off of the melting glaciers to power generators!

Or how about tethered Blimps, with wind powered generators? LOng enough tethers so the blimp floats into the jet stream where the wind blows 200 miles per hour. Up so high, they are out of sight. The jet streams just have to get stronger, what with all of the extreme weather brought on by global warming. Aand, we'll cover the blimp with solar cells. The cells will have to be more efficient, what with less atmosphere above them to absorb the light...Aand, we'l make the cables out of 2 different metals, so they will make electricity from the difference in temperatures between the two ends. And we'll anchor the cables into piezo electric blocks, so the tension will generate electricity too. And we can collect the condensation off the skin of our blimp, and drain it through a hydro/electric plant. Imagin the force of water falling 40,000 feet....

Or maybe just burn sea weed in our generators???
 
Geckko said:
I imagine we will slowly build a mix of alternative sources, but think carbon will be the backbone for some timr.

Wind is OK, but it is an eye-sore, takes up a lot of space and is unpredictable enough to require massive overcapacity and alternatives. So I don't think this will be the future, despite all the public money that is boosting its growth at the moment.

Solar is clearly the long term winner, but very inefficient still under preesent technology and only works on average 50% of the time.

Tidal sounds good as well. 24/7 highly reliable energy source (unless we lose the Moon). I don't know what exactly the challenges are here. It may need a lot of space, like wind.

Nuclear. clearly has to be part of the mix. Technology here now, 24/7 reliability. It is just a tad costly though - but not compared to the costs we are trying to mitigate against. Waste challenges are overhyped. Australia could form a booming market in storage, buried in inert materials in arid and geologically stable places hundreds of miles from anything.
Click to expand...

Wind is excellent, because a distributed system will pick up wind somewhere. Solar is an excellent balance to wind, as the two will often complement each other. Australia has a national grid that allows power to be routed all around the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom