Fun with Global Warming - Part Deux!
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with Global Warming - Part Deux!
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 . . . 34 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Jeffrey  Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
Soon we will be required to reduce our exhalation footprint. Hopefully sooner than later... ;)  It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 561548 ·  |
GalaxyIce  Send message Joined: 13 May 06 Posts: 8927 Credit: 1,361,057 RAC: 0 
|
Yes, Bill. That pretty much covers it. Shutting down human productivity is a common 'enviornmental goal'. I can get you links if you need 'em....and links to the 'pro suicide' sites too. The fitness instructor always said you should take your breathing exercises seriously. He was trying to tell you all along and you just decided to go to the pub instead and exhale pollutants. Now we know who's going to get it after the cigarette smokers have been ousted. Everyone else! flaming balloons ID: 561582 · |
BillHyland  Send message Joined: 30 Apr 04 Posts: 907 Credit: 5,764,172 RAC: 0 
|
Maybe that'll cut down on alot of the hot air in here...from all sides. So there's an upside, Bill? Not that I can see. The EPA has become another repository of fad reaction to unproven theories. Kind of like the FDA, only more obviously pathetic. ID: 561811 · |
|
GalaxyIce Send message Joined: 13 May 06 Posts: 8927 Credit: 1,361,057 RAC: 0
|
ID: 563888 · |
|
GalaxyIce Send message Joined: 13 May 06 Posts: 8927 Credit: 1,361,057 RAC: 0
|
China could overtake US as biggest emissions culprit by November  Chinese executives walk through fumes in Beijing. Photograph: Stephen Shaver/AFP/Getty images "China may overtake the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases within months, one of the world's leading energy analysts predicted yesterday." China has signed up to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, but, as a developing country, it does not have a cap on its emissions. The new prediction is that it will become the world's largest contributor of greenhouse gases this year and within 25 years CO2 emissions which come from China alone will be double the CO2 emissions which will come from all the OECD countries put together - the whole US, plus Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. read more... flaming balloons ID: 564513 · |
Scary Capitalist  Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
An interesting photo with the accompanying commentary...as if that smog is 'the smog' that is causing whatever perceived problem. If we assume it's man doing it....and then we assume it IS a problem....there's nothing we can do about it. There's always Mars! We can warm that up. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! 
ID: 564515 · |
Knightmare  Send message Joined: 16 Aug 04 Posts: 7472 Credit: 94,252 RAC: 0
|
There's always Mars! We can warm that up. We won't need to. According to a recent report, it's warming up all by itself. :-) Air Cold, the blade stops; from silent stone, Death is preordained  Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome ID: 564630 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
There's always Mars! We can warm that up. Funny isn't it? All at the time that our sun is itself in a phase that it is hotter..... Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 565095 · |
|
BillHyland Send message Joined: 30 Apr 04 Posts: 907 Credit: 5,764,172 RAC: 0
|
Why Ethanol Backfires Shifting more corn to fuel production has serious consequences. Importing the sugar-based variety from Brazil makes more sense. By Colin A. Carter and Henry I. Miller, COLIN A. CARTER is a professor of agricultural and resource economics at UC Davis. HENRY I. MILLER, a physician and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, was an FDA official from 1979 to 1994; his most May 17, 2007 POLICYMAKERS and legislators often fail to consider the law of unintended consequences. The latest example is their attempt to reduce the United States' dependence on imported oil by shifting a big share of the nation's largest crop, corn, to the production of ethanol for fueling automobiles. Good goal, bad policy. In fact, ethanol will do little to reduce the large percentage of our fuel that is imported (more than 60%), and the ethanol policy will have widespread and profound ripple effects on other markets. Corn farmers and ethanol refiners are ecstatic about the ethanol boom and are enjoying the windfall of artificially enhanced demand. But it will be an expensive and dangerous experiment for the rest of us. On Capitol Hill, the Senate is debating legislation that would further expand corn ethanol production. A 2005 law already mandates production of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, about 5% of the projected gasoline use at that time. These biofuel goals are propped up by a generous federal subsidy of 51 cents a gallon for blending ethanol into gasoline, and a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on most imported ethanol to help keep out cheap imports from Brazil. The proposed legislation is a prime example of throwing good money after a bad idea. President Bush has set a target of replacing 15% of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) over the next 10 years, which would require almost a fivefold increase in mandatory biofuel use, to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no feasible alternative. However, achieving the 15% goal would require the entire current U.S. corn crop, which represents a whopping 40% of the world's corn supply. This would do more than create mere market distortions; the irresistible pressure to divert corn from food to fuel would create unprecedented turmoil. Thus, it is no surprise that the price of corn has doubled in the last year  from $2 to $4 a bushel. We are already seeing upward pressure on food prices as the demand for ethanol boosts the demand for corn. Until the recent ethanol boom, more than 60% of the annual U.S. corn harvest was fed domestically to cattle, hogs and chickens or used in food or beverages. Thousands of food items contain corn or corn byproducts. In Mexico, where corn is a staple food, the price of tortillas has skyrocketed because U.S. corn has been diverted to ethanol production. And any sort of shock to corn yields, such as drought, unseasonably hot weather, pests or disease could send food prices into the stratosphere. Such concerns are more than theoretical. In 1970, a widespread outbreak of a fungus called southern corn leaf blight destroyed 15% of the U.S. corn crop. Politicians like to say that ethanol is environmentally friendly, but these claims must be put into perspective. Although corn is a renewable resource, it has a far lower yield relative to the energy used to produce it than either biodiesel (such as soybean oil) or ethanol from other plants. Moreover, ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon than gasoline, so mileage drops off significantly. Finally, adding ethanol raises the price of blended fuel because it is more expensive to transport and handle. Lower-cost biomass ethanol  for example, from rice straw (a byproduct of harvesting rice) or switchgrass  would make far more economic sense, but large volumes of ethanol from biomass will not be commercially viable for many years. (And production will be delayed by government policies that specifically encourage corn-based ethanol by employing subsidies.) American legislators and policymakers seem oblivious to the scientific and economic realities of ethanol production. Brazil and other major sugar cane-producing nations enjoy significant advantages over the U.S. in producing ethanol, including ample agricultural land, warm climates amenable to vast plantations and on-site distilleries that can process cane immediately after harvest. Thus, in the absence of cost-effective, domestically available sources for producing ethanol, rather than using corn, it would make far more sense to import ethanol from Brazil and other countries that can produce it efficiently  and also to remove the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol imports. Our politicians may be drunk with the prospect of corn-derived ethanol, but if we don't adopt policies based on science and sound economics, it is consumers around the world who will suffer the hangover. ID: 569793 · |
Dominique  Send message Joined: 3 Mar 05 Posts: 1628 Credit: 74,745 RAC: 0
|
Why this big push towards ethanol? Another alcohol called butanol makes much more sense. http://www.butanol.com/ ID: 569853 · |
|
Knightmare Send message Joined: 16 Aug 04 Posts: 7472 Credit: 94,252 RAC: 0
|
... Importing the sugar-based variety from Brazil makes more sense. As someone who works in the sugar industry in the U.S. I happen to think that importing a sugar based ethanol does NOT make more sense. You want it to make sense, then shift the the production from corn to sugar with no ( or very limited ) imports. One of our plants is in the process of being turned into an Ethanol plant. I am sure the company would be happy to covert at least one more if they knew the market for the fuel would be there. Due to imports from Mexico, the sugar market isn't very profitable right now, so if they could make better money on Ethanol, I am pretty sure they would be willing to make another change. Just a thought here.... Why should we be so willing to go from being dependant on foreign OIL to being dependant on foreign Ehatnol??? Air Cold, the blade stops; from silent stone, Death is preordained Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome ID: 570015 · |
|
Dominique Send message Joined: 3 Mar 05 Posts: 1628 Credit: 74,745 RAC: 0
|
Why this big push towards ethanol? Another alcohol called butanol makes much more sense. Duh.... Do you think I only know about kerosene/jet fuel? ID: 570036 · |
|
BillHyland Send message Joined: 30 Apr 04 Posts: 907 Credit: 5,764,172 RAC: 0
|
Why this big push towards ethanol? Another alcohol called butanol makes much more sense. I just don't know D, it doesn't make sense to me either. It may be because ethanol production on an industrial scale is a proven process, calling for ethanol pleases the Ag lobby and therefore it is a safe thing to propose. ID: 570054 · |
|
Dominique Send message Joined: 3 Mar 05 Posts: 1628 Credit: 74,745 RAC: 0
|
Why this big push towards ethanol? Another alcohol called butanol makes much more sense. Butanol has many superior properties as an alternative fuel when compared to ethanol. These include:
ID: 570070 · |
|
BillHyland Send message Joined: 30 Apr 04 Posts: 907 Credit: 5,764,172 RAC: 0
|
Why this big push towards ethanol? Another alcohol called butanol makes much more sense. A quick google shows that the process is similar to that of ethanol and what I could skim quickly implies that the process cost per unit volume is similar to that of ethanol. There isn't any downside I can find. Shall we get a letter/e-mail campaign to our Senate and Congress going? ID: 570105 · |
John Clark  Send message Joined: 29 Sep 99 Posts: 16515 Credit: 4,418,829 RAC: 0
|
Two trends to reduce demand and reliance on imported crude could happen in the States - First: now your diesel supply has moved to ultra low sulphur diesel (derv), the purchase of cars, minicans, SUVs and trucks could move to diesel engines. The performance of these vehicles will be similar or the same as gasoline power, but you would reduce fuel consumprion between 30% and 50% for the same power output (but much much better torque). An additional benefit would be a considerably cleaner exhaust emmission then catalysed gasoline can give (NOx and particles are dealt with by EGR and particle traps). Second: move to the production and use of 100% biodiesel from rape and soya crops. Current diesel engines, from the old Comet Pre-chambered ones to the modern high pressuer 2,000 bar common rail diesels can burn diesel in any percentage from 100% mineral diesel, from crude, to 100% biodiesel without ill effects. I know as I am running my SUV on 100% biodiesel, and have for the last year. The benefit is lower carbon dioxide output, a renewable energy source, and a fuel price (all fuel and sales tax paid) that is currently 22% lower than the pump price where I live! It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues  
ID: 570197 · |
|
BillHyland Send message Joined: 30 Apr 04 Posts: 907 Credit: 5,764,172 RAC: 0
|
Two trends to reduce demand and reliance on imported crude could happen in the States - Considering the US infrastructure, what kind of investment would that take to implement? ID: 572846 · |
|
Scott D Send message Joined: 22 May 07 Posts: 5 Credit: 1,943 RAC: 0
|
This is a very touchy topic for me. Especially with a Native American history and heritage to draw on. The whole world needs to do more not just America. Half driven policies isn't helping us much. We are possibly at a critical stage that if something isn't done fast, we pretty much screwed our exsistance. Comercial greed is a big player. We have the technology to change to a much cleaner full source. We have had that ability for a couple decades,but commercial oil producers and poor political greed has prevented it. There is no excuse. Money in oil production out weighed life on the planet. Now as temps increase, water levels begin to rise do to ice caps melting, we can look forward to wasted money due to that greed. President bush (sorry if you are offended becuase you support Bush) was the worst thing to happen to this Nation. Sure in a recount (that I still see as shady) he beat out Al Gore. AL GOre the one person who could have enforced change in enviroment changes is not in office, so insted it was ignored once again. Insted of using less oil and harmfull emissions, we goto war using a hudge amount more. The cost of the fuel usage, dangerous emissions, when compared to what the war has achieved does not balance out. We simple screwed ourselves more. I tell this to people when I do Native AMerican Flute performances with my music to raise awareness for events or charities. "Don't fear the total Death of Mother Earth (our world). She will change faces many times. Through her injury and pain she will Change face once again. Here pouring tears will wash away the damage. Her spirit will ignite like flames to burn away the old. Here desire to survive will strike with a electrical force. ANd renew life. However Mankind will no longer be welcome, and will not be reborn from her womb. The life blood that flows through her viens will bring forth new life." The global temp is rising. There will be drought due to rising salt water levels, but less fresh water. Economic strain since humans can't seem to do without money. SInce money flows through Mankinds viens, the life blood will dry up and they will wither and dry, since we can't survive on money in the viens. Weather patterns will change, as well as other issues that threaten human survival. In a shorter period then you think. Unless we greatly slow emmisions, it will increase, and humankind won't survive much longer. If stopped we can allow the earth to heal itself with us. If we ignore it, we will disapear, and new life will emerge as the prime children of the Earth. As far as our spirit brothers from across the great sky. They will see we have failed and we will become a page in their hsitory as a species who could not evolve and survive. ID: 574386 · |
Rush  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
Pay attention to the math... The Arithmetic of Environmentalist Devastation By George Reisman A major demand of the environmental movement, put forward as essential to combating global warming, is the imposition of a massive rollback in global emissions of carbon dioxide accompanied by a freeze on such emissions at the sharply reduced level imposed. In this spirit, Britain's Stern Review, published in the fall of 2006, seeks a reduction of 25 percent by the year 2050. Going considerably further, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has urged a 60 percent reduction. Such pronouncements can be made openly and repeatedly only because the immense majority of people do not take the trouble to understand their implications. They do not because what is required to do so is a combination of making connections between various facts and performing calculations. These are activities that are widely perceived as onerous. Nevertheless, this level of thinking is essential if people are to understand the implications of environmentalism's demands. In purely verbal terms, those implications are that environmentalism seeks the destruction of the energy base of the modern world, along with the elimination or radical reduction in the supply of all goods and services that depend on that energy base. It seeks this on the grounds that these goods and the energy on which they depend entail the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The goods and services in question are air conditioners, automobiles, airplane travel, housing, food, clothing, refrigerators, freezers, television sets, telephones, washers, dryers, books, computersâ€â€everything that depends on the production and use of oil, coal, or natural gas, which all release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in being burned. The destruction of the energy base and the production of goods and services is implied by the fact that in order to rollback the emission of carbon dioxide, it is necessary to rollback the production and use of energy in these forms. But rolling back the production and use of energy reduces the production of goods and services. Turning now to the arithmetic of environmentalist destruction, I will proceed to calculate the extent of the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions per person that is entailed in the environmentalist demands. This will serve as a guide to the extent of the reduction in the production and use of energy per person and thus as a guide to the reduction in the production of goods and services per person. Proceeding in this way, it will be very easy to prove that environmentalism seeks the destruction of the energy base of the modern world, along with the elimination or radical reduction in the supply of all goods and services that depend on it. Let me start with the 25 percent reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions urged by the Stern Review. Its application across the world would imply a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions here in the United States by that year. Yet the population of the United States in 2050 is projected to be approximately 400 million people. Since the US population is currently 300 million people, this means that four-thirds of the present population of the US would be expected to generate only three-fourths of present carbon dioxide emissions. Three-fourths divided by four-thirds is nine-sixteenths, or 56.25 percent. That would be the projected per capita level of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States in 2050, i.e., a reduction of 43.75 percent from today's level. If the reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions is to be 60 percent rather than 25 percent, then, with the same increase in population, the reduction in per capita emissions in the United States would be to a level found by dividing 40 percent (the emissions remaining after the 60 percent reduction) by four-thirds. Since division by four-thirds is always multiplication by three-fourths, the per capita reduction would be to a level of 30 percent of today's emissions instead of 56.25 percent. The per capital reduction in emissions in the United States would be 70 percent rather than 43.75 percent. But there is yet a further major reduction in US per capita carbon dioxide emissions to contend with. And that is that while global emissions will be reduced by 25 percent, or by 60 percent, emissions in China, India, and the rest of the so-called third world will be allowed to go on increasing, presumably until there is equality in per capita emissions across the world. At present, even though it has only 5 percent of the world's population, the US consumes 25 percent of the world's supply of energy and is responsible for approximately 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Assuming the US population to remain at 5 percent of the world's population, the achievement of global equality in per capita carbon dioxide emissions would require a reduction in US energy consumption from its present 25 percent to 5 percent, corresponding to the size of its population. This implies a further reduction of 80 percent in per capita emissions in the US. This is because 5 percent divided by 25 percent is 20 percent; a fall to 20 percent of the initial percentage is a decline of 80 percent from the initial percentage. This further decline of 80 percent in per capita carbon dioxide emissions would apply to the already very substantial percentage declines calculated above. Thus, with a rollback of 25 percent in global emissions, the decline in the US would be to 20 percent of 56.25 percent, i.e. to 11.25 percent. This, of course, would be an 88.75 percent reduction in per capita US carbon dioxide emissions. With a rollback of 60 percent in global emissions, the decline in the US would be to 20 percent of 30 percent, i.e. to 6 percent. This would be a 94 percent reduction in per capita US carbon dioxide emissions. Whether the per capita reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is to 6 percent or to 11.25 percent, whether or not a few percentage points of reduction can be avoided by virtue of obtaining additional power from windmills and solar panels (the environmentalists will not allow atomic power, which they regard as the death ray and oppose even more than carbon dioxide emissions, nor will they allow hydro-power insofar as it interferes with the migratory patterns of fish), the clear implication is economic devastation. It is devastation in the production and use of energy and devastation in the production of everything that depends on energy. The implications of imposing environmentalism's demands include those that I have discussed in previous articles on the subject. In terms of the life of individuals, they are precisely of the kind described in the newspaper articles I quote in "After the Hideous Light Bulbs." They also include such paradoxes as attempting to fight global warming by means of destroying air conditioners, refrigerators, and freezers. (I presented this particular paradox in "Environmentalist Zen." That it is present in environmentalism is something that should be glaringly obvious from the present article.) It follows that inasmuch as anything may serve as an opening wedge in getting people to accept environmentalism's agenda of destruction and impoverishment, it needs to be opposed as strongly as possible. Such is the case with the organized campaign now underway to get people to accept the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs in place of customary, incandescent bulbs. As a prelude to their imposition by law, the sale of these bulbs is currently being highly subsidized by business firms seeking to curry favor with environmentalists, in order to mitigate the harm that they expect would otherwise be done to them. It should be obvious that it is necessary to fight acceptance of these bulbs, as I argue in "Say No to the Hideous Light Bulbs." There is tremendous public pressure today to join the environmentalist cause. Business firms that had long opposed it are now rushing to join it. Opposition is evaporating. Where there are still pockets of serious resistance, environmentalist smears serve to undercut their effectiveness. This has been the case, for example, with respect to the British television documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which presents the views of numerous scientific experts on climate and the causes of climate change who are opposed to the environmentalists' claim that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide emissions. The public embrace of a movement as dreadfully destructive as environmentalism brings to mind the rush to embrace Hitler and the Nazi Party in the Germany of 1932 and 1933, once their victory at the polls seemed to become inevitable, and then once they actually came to power. However the views of serious people, who hold their views first-hand, based on their own, independent judgment, do not change merely because the views of others have changed. Nazism was a catastrophe. Environmentalism has the potential to be an even greater catastropheâ€â€a far greater catastrophe than Nazism: one that will result in the deaths of billions rather than millions. This is because it is the diametric opposite of economic liberalism. In contrast to liberalism and its doctrine of the harmony of the rightly understood self-interests of all men, environmentalism alleges the most profound conflict of interests among people. It implies that there is a major economic benefit to be obtained through the death of billions of fellow human beings, that, indeed, the well-being and prosperity of the survivors depends on the extermination of those billions. Thus, for example, from the depraved perspective of environmentalism, if global carbon dioxide emissions equal to 25 percent of present emissions were to disappear, because those responsible for them ceased to exist, there would be no need for the global cutback in emissions urged by the Stern Review, and thus no need for any diminution in economic well-being on the part of the survivors (provided, of course, their number did not increase). If still more emissions could be eliminated by the elimination of still more people, there would be room for actual economic improvement among the survivors, according to environmentalism. Obviously, the magnitude of mass murder that is invited is the greater, the greater is the alleged need to curb carbon dioxide emissions. Those who recognize the astoundingly evil nature of environmentalism must never cease opposing it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- George Reisman, Ph.D. is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics and is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. His web site is www.capitalism.net and his blog is www.georgereisman.com/blog/. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... 
ID: 574431 · |
|
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
Pay attention to the math... A while back I told my boss that I hated parking my car in the grass because the tires dry rotted much faster than they would have if I had parked on dry pavement... His response was that the quality of rubber being produced today is much greater than it was years ago and that I had nothing to worry about... My response was that it doesn't really matter how much the quality of the rubber had improved, the fact still remained, if I park on the grass my tires will not last as long as they would if I park on the pavement... Pay attention to the 'common sense'... ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 574502 · |
©2025 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.