The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 . . . 22 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16678
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1171050 - Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 21:45:08 UTC

Ignoring global warming and climate change, just look at one of the other costs of not going greener:


MPs slam UK's record on the "invisible killer"

Health problems caused by poor air quality in parts of the UK are worsening, yet the government has failed to introduce reforms, say MPs.

4,000 people died in 2008 as a result of air pollution in London alone; 30,000 died across the UK as a whole.

... costing [UK] society up to £20 billion per year.



I dread to think what the numbers are for the US, China, India, and Indonesia!

Still our only one planet,
Martin


See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1171050 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16678
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1171862 - Posted: 18 Nov 2011, 9:27:02 UTC - in response to Message 1171050.  
Last modified: 18 Nov 2011, 9:28:17 UTC

Ignoring global warming and climate change, just look at one of the other costs of not going greener:


MPs slam UK's record on the "invisible killer"

Health problems caused by poor air quality in parts of the UK are worsening, yet the government has failed to introduce reforms, say MPs.

4,000 people died in 2008 as a result of air pollution in London alone; 30,000 died across the UK as a whole.

... costing [UK] society up to £20 billion per year.



And a costly temporary partial fix of the symptoms:

Boris Johnson sticks by gluing pollution to roads

It sounds like the sort of idea he might have come up with on the satirical TV shows he frequented before becoming London Mayor. But Boris Johnson is serious about gluing pollution to roads.

For the past few months a fleet of specially adapted gritting lorries has been spraying...



I dread to think what the numbers are for the US, China, India, and Indonesia!

And I dread to think what the 'political' solution will be for the ever rising industrial CO2 pollution...


Still our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1171862 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1172067 - Posted: 19 Nov 2011, 1:48:38 UTC

Can you tell me the names of the 4000 who died of air pollution ??
ID: 1172067 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1172146 - Posted: 19 Nov 2011, 10:15:37 UTC - in response to Message 1171862.  

And I dread to think what the 'political' solution will be for the ever rising industrial CO2 pollution...


Does that mean your physical contribution to CO2 production is to be counted?
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1172146 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16678
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1172150 - Posted: 19 Nov 2011, 10:47:52 UTC - in response to Message 1172067.  

Can you tell me the names of the 4000 who died of air pollution ??

That just must be the ultimate in denialism...

Is that really the best you can do?

Note how you have never given ANY plausible explanation or evidence that we can pollute our planet with impunity.


For a glib answer for you, take a tour of the hospitals around Beijing. I'm sure you'll find many more examples (people) than just 4000 there... Their age expectancy is?...

Regards,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1172150 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16678
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1172151 - Posted: 19 Nov 2011, 10:49:41 UTC - in response to Message 1172146.  

And I dread to think what the 'political' solution will be for the ever rising industrial CO2 pollution...

Does that mean your physical contribution to CO2 production is to be counted?


Can be. You'll find that to be insignificant compared to the industrial output.

Hell... The output of volcanoes is insignificant compared to our industrial output of CO2 and the knock-on consequences of that.


But then, I know you don't have any sensible or practical answers...

Regards,
Martin


See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1172151 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1172154 - Posted: 19 Nov 2011, 11:47:33 UTC - in response to Message 1172151.  

No one said we can pollute the planet with impunity. The issue is why you think CO-2 is a "pollution" to be concerned about.

Every time I flush my toilet I pollute the Earth. Every time I drive to work I pollute the Earth. 40,000 people are killed in the US every year in traffic accidents. Should we ban automobiles and stop breathing?

Since we have to live on our only planet, shouldn't we be more concerned with the pollution that is egregiously harmful and can be controlled in a rational manner.
ID: 1172154 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16678
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1172173 - Posted: 19 Nov 2011, 13:39:20 UTC - in response to Message 1172154.  

No one said we can pollute the planet with impunity. The issue is why you think CO-2 is a "pollution" to be concerned about.

You seem to ignore the measured increase in the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, and that the increase is large and significant.

You ignore that CO2 directly influences the temperature of our planet.

Every time I flush my toilet I pollute the Earth. Every time I drive to work I pollute the Earth.

That is hopefully treated so that it can all be recycled. Where that is not the case, that is also a problem, as I'm sure you're aware.


40,000 people are killed in the US every year in traffic accidents. Should we ban automobiles and stop breathing?

That's a facetious argument but it might help even if not acceptable/practical.

Since we have to live on our only planet, shouldn't we be more concerned with the pollution that is egregiously harmful and can be controlled in a rational manner.

Yes. There is the full range of industrial and farming environmental problems. Even so, CO2 pollution is well on the way to being the most significant influence on all life on earth...


Still our only planet,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1172173 · Report as offensive
Iona
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 07
Posts: 790
Credit: 22,438,118
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1172175 - Posted: 19 Nov 2011, 14:05:36 UTC

So, what is the difference between a 'dust-cart' and a bus? Answer. One is subject to engine emmissions testing, whilst the other is free to ply it's trade and pump out any amount of 'crap' into the atmosphere! Should we therefore remove all buses from the roads in the UK?




Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!
ID: 1172175 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1172214 - Posted: 19 Nov 2011, 15:50:36 UTC - in response to Message 1172151.  
Last modified: 19 Nov 2011, 15:54:33 UTC

Hell... The output of volcanoes is insignificant compared to our industrial output of CO2 and the knock-on consequences of that.


But then, I know you don't have any sensible or practical answers...

Regards,
Martin



When Tambora erupted in 1815 the Rev James Little (1820) remarked on it's sudden
effects upon global climate. Constable noted this too in the deep reddening seen
during sunsets, so vividly depicted in some of his brilliant paintings.

The European commission has issued a study paper on global warming and a part
of their findings has been omitted from the final edit. The part omitted covered
the last 15 years of mean global temperatures and for some reason they wish this
finding not to be generally known?? If one can't be told the true facts how
can one then be able to draw the right conclusions, well, you can't. What
were the facts left out from the Commissions report? Well, I say because of the amount
of miss-information spread around by both sides of the global warming argument
then it would be best that you do your own research and find this answer for
yourselves.
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1172214 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1172503 - Posted: 20 Nov 2011, 16:54:34 UTC

Do we even know that the Earth is warming? If so how do we know and what are the references and the data. What is the definition ? If the North Pole ice is melting due to tilt of the axis and the Southpole is piling on record amounts of ice, do we say the earth is warming.

If we agree that it is "Warming" then why do we ascribe it to a harmless gas that exists in miniscule proportion in the atmosphere. I would want to look at.

Sun's output impinging on Earth.
Cloud cover variation
Water Vapor
Dust storms
Axis tilt
Chaos theory (random weather cycles)

After we rule these out then we can look to other less likely "causes"

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Should I imply that the fact that people are now living longer to higher CO-2 concentrations.


ID: 1172503 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29433
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1172516 - Posted: 20 Nov 2011, 17:29:07 UTC - in response to Message 1172503.  

Do we even know that the Earth is warming? If so how do we know and what are the references and the data. What is the definition ? If the North Pole ice is melting due to tilt of the axis and the Southpole is piling on record amounts of ice, do we say the earth is warming.

If we agree that it is "Warming" then why do we ascribe it to a harmless gas that exists in miniscule proportion in the atmosphere. I would want to look at.

Sun's output impinging on Earth.
Cloud cover variation
Water Vapor
Dust storms
Axis tilt
Chaos theory (random weather cycles)

After we rule these out then we can look to other less likely "causes"

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Should I imply that the fact that people are now living longer to higher CO-2 concentrations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv is your friend. Do your searches. Read the papers. Do your homework. It is all there.

ID: 1172516 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16678
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1172603 - Posted: 20 Nov 2011, 23:17:25 UTC - in response to Message 1172503.  
Last modified: 20 Nov 2011, 23:19:37 UTC

Do we even know that the Earth is warming? If so how do we know and what are the references and the data. What is the definition ? If the North Pole ice is melting due to tilt of the axis and the Southpole is piling on record amounts of ice, do we say the earth is warming.

If we agree that it is "Warming" then why do we ascribe it to a harmless gas that exists in miniscule proportion in the atmosphere.

That "harmless gas that exists in miniscule(sic) proportion in the atmosphere" is vital for giving us such a benign temperature for our planet. That is also why rapidly changing the amount of that gas in our atmosphere has anyone that knows about it, extremely concerned. It's a bit like having a mad hatter's tea party on a freight line whilst those that look can see the freight train nearby bearing down upon everyone at high speed, ever closer, ever faster.


I would want to look at.

Sun's output impinging on Earth.
Cloud cover variation
Water Vapor
Dust storms
Axis tilt
Chaos theory (random weather cycles)

After we rule these out then we can look to other less likely "causes"

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Should I imply that the fact that people are now living longer to higher CO-2 concentrations.

All already closely looked at.

The first "hypothesis" was published well over 100 years ago. The first simulations to quantify the concerns were run in the 1960's (President Nixon). All the simulations and measurements since continue to confirm the unfolding scenario. The only arguments are merely over the fine detail and for exactly when we 'break' the present weather patterns into something radically different.


It's a bit like playing a game of how heavily you can load up a bridge and gamble on exactly when it will break. We can already see the girders buckling...


Note that despite all of the paid for power industry FUD publicity and sponsored research, there are no reputable publications to say we can pollute our atmosphere with ever increasingly vast amounts of CO2 for no consequence.

Still our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1172603 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1172983 - Posted: 22 Nov 2011, 11:28:01 UTC

All already closely looked at.


I tend to doubt it.
ID: 1172983 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16678
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1173010 - Posted: 22 Nov 2011, 14:15:26 UTC - in response to Message 1172983.  

All already closely looked at.


I tend to doubt it.

Then please look for yourself. Or let us know where the science is so wildly wrong.


Just one 'teaser' to try:

Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

Note in that posting that "long wave radiation" is more commonly known as infrared heat and is what is radiated from the surface of our planet (outwards to the cold of space). Meanwhile, our sun radiates "short wave radiation" that we see as sunlight. Also note how we rely on about 33 deg C of natural global warming for our present comfortably pleasant life.


All in our only world,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1173010 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16678
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1176669 - Posted: 9 Dec 2011, 3:06:52 UTC

Two small success stories:


Largest carbon capture plant in UK opens in Yorkshire

... The pilot at the Ferrybridge power station, ... will capture emissions equivalent to 5MW of generation. This is a small fraction of the total exhaust gas from the 2000MW plant, but 50 times bigger than the previous biggest pilot, the company said. The carbon dioxide captured will not be stored, as this pilot is aimed at testing the scrubbing part of the process. ...


Huhne insists carbon reduction strategy is 'on track'

Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has insisted that plans to cut Britain's carbon emissions are on track. ...

... Asked about the recent announcement of a reduction in subsidies for solar panels, Mr Huhne said this was a "sensible course correction" because the cost of panels had fallen. ...

... The estimated cost of this transition could be as high as £20bn, the plan suggests, although it also could ultimately result in a net benefit to the economy of £1bn.

Mr Huhne has vowed to change the way the country produces energy, replacing old coal plants with gas-fired power stations and renewable sources as well as building a new generation of nuclear plants.

The carbon plan suggests that household energy bills could be 7% lower in 2020 than now if government policies on home insulation and energy efficiency are fully implemented. ...





And we've a long way to go yet!


All in our only world,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1176669 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1176831 - Posted: 9 Dec 2011, 18:04:52 UTC

The carbon plan suggests that household energy bills could be 7% lower in 2020 than now if government policies on home insulation and energy efficiency are fully implemented. ...


Martin, there's no correlation between energy saved hence lower household
energy costs. In the UK for instance as consumption has gone down so unit
cost has risen to compensate the energy suppliers loss in profits. Consumers
are doing their bit but get penalized for it by the energy suppliers.

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.
ID: 1176831 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1176844 - Posted: 9 Dec 2011, 18:56:45 UTC - in response to Message 1176831.  

The carbon plan suggests that household energy bills could be 7% lower in 2020 than now if government policies on home insulation and energy efficiency are fully implemented. ...


Martin, there's no correlation between energy saved hence lower household
energy costs. In the UK for instance as consumption has gone down so unit
cost has risen to compensate the energy suppliers loss in profits. Consumers
are doing their bit but get penalized for it by the energy suppliers.


Well, Nick, I am not all that familiar with this situation in the UK, but here in the USA, something similar is happening re: government taxation. As consumers gradually convert over to using more fuel/energy efficient vehicles, the various States and the Federal Government are considering implementing changes to the tax structure.

As vehicle owners use less fuel, the governments are wanting to change from a per gallon tax on gasoline/diesel to one based on number of miles driven. Ya can't win for losing.

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1176844 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1177047 - Posted: 10 Dec 2011, 13:45:59 UTC
Last modified: 10 Dec 2011, 13:46:28 UTC

The UN is in the process of making another step toward world government under the guise of global warming. Here is a status update on their current plan. Hopefully this treaty will go the way off most of them in the past and will be ignored by all of the major powers. Durban
ID: 1177047 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29433
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1177650 - Posted: 13 Dec 2011, 3:12:40 UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/science/earth/canada-leaving-kyoto-protocol-on-climate-change.html?_r=1
December 12, 2011
Canada Announces Exit From Kyoto Climate Treaty
By IAN AUSTEN

OTTAWA — Canada said on Monday that it would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Under that accord, major industrialized nations agreed to meet targets for reducing emissions, but mandates were not imposed on developing countries like Brazil, China, India and South Africa. The United States never ratified the treaty.

Canada did commit to the treaty, but the agreement has been fraying. Participants at a United Nations conference in Durban, South Africa, renewed it on Sunday but could not agree on a new accord to replace it.

Instead, the 200 nations represented at the conference agreed to begin a long-term process of negotiating a new treaty, but without resolving a core issue: whether its requirements will apply equally to all countries.

The decision by Canada’s Conservative Party government had long been expected. A Liberal Party government negotiated Canada’s entry into the agreement, but the Conservative government has never disguised its disdain for the treaty.

In announcing the decision, government officials indicated that the possibility of huge fines for Canada’s failure to meet emissions targets had also played a role.

“Kyoto, for Canada, is in the past,” the environment minister, Peter Kent, told reporters shortly after returning from South Africa. He added that Canada would work toward developing an agreement that includes targets for developing nations, particularly China and India.

“What we have to look at is all major emitters,” Mr. Kent said.

Under the Kyoto Protocol’s rules, Canada must formally give notice of its intention to withdraw by the end of this year or else face penalties after 2012.

The extent of those penalties, as well as Canada’s ability to redress its inability to meet the treaty’s emission reduction targets, is a matter of some debate.

Mr. Kent said Canada could meet its commitment only through extreme measures, like pulling all motor vehicles from its roads and shutting heat off to every building in the country. He said the Liberal Party had agreed to the treaty “without any regard as to how it would be fulfilled.”

He also said the failure to meet the targets would have cost Canada $14 billion in penalties.

Other estimates, however, put the figure at $6 billion to $9 billion. Matt Horne, the director of climate change at the Pembina Institute, a Canadian environmental group, said the financial penalties might have been further reduced by agreeing to additional reductions. He also dismissed Mr. Kent’s assertions about the steps that Canada would have had to have taken to meet its commitments as extreme misrepresentations.

“It’s not a surprise that it happened,” Mr. Horne said of the government’s decision to withdraw from the treaty. “But it is a bit of surprise that it happened pretty much as they got off the plane from Durban.”

ID: 1177650 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 . . . 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction


 
©2022 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.