Global warming crowd takes a break

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

With his opinion to be "against the theorie that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm", he is in clearly minority. And as we often discussed before, this neither is a reason that his opinion isn´t right nor it is, although there are definitely more scientific data at the moment which affirm the man made global warming. So same old strory and nothing new in this article.

Nothing new in the article except for a top meteorologist "
Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work."

America's MOST RELIABLE FORECASTER, thinks Gore is full of bunk. That would qualify as something "new" imo.

But I forgot the "consensus" is in so one of the top meteorologists viewpoint is invalid.

[dude1394]

I would suggest powerlines viewpoint here as a little less biased than the media or the "consensus" seekers.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017274.php

Media Bias: How It Works

Sometimes media bias is blatant and grotesque; it can extend to flat misrepresentations, use of fake documents, etc. Much more often, it is relatively subtle, as reporters push their version of a story in small ways, day after day. Here is a textbook example, via Power Line News.

Yesterday, in an interview with the Associated Press, one of the world's leading weather experts, Dr. William Gray, blasted Al Gore for perpetrating global warming hysteria. Since Dr. Gray is generally recognized as the world's leading expert in the science of forecasting hurricanes, this is news. But let's examine how the AP handled it in the article that resulted from their interview. The AP begins in a straightforward manner:

[Dr.Zoidberg]

This is a horrible decision imo.

Sad enough that USA needs an adjudication of the Supreme Court! It´s the only one of the countries in the world by now.

This effectively gives the EPA the power to license a bar-b-que for 20 euros.

You know this is nonsense.

Supreme Court should stay out of this crap.

Here I have to prove you right. It doesn´t have to come to the point that a Court has to decide about it.

Hopefully we can remove this by law from the EPA's jurisdiction.

I´m not a jurisprudent, but in Germany, if the Supreme Court returns a verdict, there is no way to remove the adjudication. The adjudication is definitely valid and you can´t enter a caveat. I think there is no difference in USA.

Unfortunately looking at this ruling it's even more disturbing. Not only has it determined CO2 is under the EPA's jurisdiction but it's opened the door for enviromental lawsuits far and wide based on global warming, even though the court itself agrees that it's far from certain.

Now basically any wacko state(state today, individual probalby tommorrow) can bring suit for any reason based on global warming quack science. As liberals love to do, the decision making is being taken away from the people and given to a bunch of lawyers and judges.

That was always a problem in USA that everyone can sue anyone for trifles (e.g. the person which was burned from hot coffee and sued a fast food company for not writing a warning on the cup that it contains something hot. LOL).

But I hope the judges are intelligent enough not to accept every sue and are able to decide between quack science or accepted science and to return reasonable verdicts. Or do you have such little confidence in your country´s jurisdiction?

America's MOST RELIABLE FORECASTER, thinks Gore is full of bunk. That would qualify as something "new" imo.

As I said several times, I don´t know the movie, so I can´t comment on the substance. Also Al Gore is no scientist, so maybe he doesn´t understand the coherences of this topic correctly and therefore can´t put the quintessence across good enough.

But I forgot the "consensus" is in so one of the top meteorologists viewpoint is invalid.

I never said that his viewpoint is invalid:

Concerning the hurricanes I wrote:

So I can´t find a statement by Gray, which speaks against a trend of increasing hurricanes, caused by global warming.

In this post I founded my standpoint as well.

Concerning the man made global warming:
That´s why I wrote to his opinion to be "against the theorie that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm":

"And as we often discussed before, this neither is a reason that his opinion isn´t right nor it is,...(and you can´t deny that), "...there are definitely more scientific data at the moment which affirm the man made global warming".

I would suggest powerlines viewpoint here as a little less biased than the media or the "consensus" seekers.

I also don´t like that often articles have been written by authors who don´t know enough about the complex subject matter. They only wrote an article about this topic, because it´s state of the art at the moment to write about this topic. And often those authors twist somebodys words or misinterpret the coherences of this topic.

[Underdog]

I'm totally cereal guys!

[Dr.Zoidberg]

South Park is one of my favourite animations. So respect my fuckin´ authority, Manbearpig!

[Arne]

SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH NASA CLIMATE EXPERT JAMES HANSEN
'We Need to Take Action Soon'
James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, spoke to DER SPIEGEL about the causes and consequences of global warming -- and why there are only ten years left to steer the world away from climate catastrophe.


AP
James Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Hansen, temperatures in Central Park reached 22 degrees Celsius (71.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in January, the Alps lacked snow throughout the season -- is winter being erased by global warming?

James Hansen: Weather and climate are two different things, which often confuses people. The average temperature is now 0.8 degrees Celsius higher than in the last century, with three-quarters of the increase happening in the last 30 years. But compared to the usual weather fluctuations, that's quite small. You can have a ten-degree variation from day to day in the weather. You can have anomalies of an average of several degrees over one month, and you still don't have to worry. However, this does not indicate we can stop thinking about this issue: We've just experienced the warmest January in 127 years of record-keeping.

SPIEGEL: Even so, a global warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius over 100 years doesn't sound very dramatic.

Hansen: There's another half degree Celsius in the pipeline due to gases already in the atmosphere, and there's at least one more half degree to come due to power plants which we're not going to stop immediately. Even if we decide now we've got to slow down as fast as is practical, there's still going to be enough emissions to take us to the warmest level that the planet has seen in a million years. That's enough to take us close to and possibly beyond what I would say is a dangerous level.

SPIEGEL: How can you be so sure of that?

Hansen: We know a lot about the history of the Earth. If we want to keep the planet looking close to what it looks like now, then we had better not accept an increase by more than one degree Celsius. Because if temperature goes up another two or three degrees Celsius, it will be the temperature of the middle Pliocene about 3 million years ago. That was a very different planet. There was no sea ice in the Arctic in the warm seasons, and the sea level was about 25 meters higher. We will be headed towards this situation if we continue with business-as-usual.

SPIEGEL: Who or what is responsible for the warming of our planet?

Hansen: I would say it's approximately 102 percent man-made. We know very well that the climate would have been heading towards a colder climate if it weren't for human-made emissions. We've been in an interglacial period now for almost 12,000 years, and we know that this period peaked 6,000 or 8,000 years ago. We were headed slowly toward cooler climates until humans came along. And now humans have sent us off in a completely different direction.

SPIEGEL: Just recently the United Nations Panel on Climate Change declared that it is now 90 percent certain that global warming is real. Doesn't this come a bit late?

Hansen: You know, we said that a long time ago, but that's okay. This panel involves more than one hundred nations including Saudi Arabia and others. Those countries have to be dragged kicking and screaming to this sort of conclusion. The panel, by the way, is very reluctant to say anything about sea level change, although the evidence that has accumulated in the last two or three years is impressive.

SPIEGEL: What does it show?

Hansen: We've gotten fantastic measurements from a gravity satellite. They explain exactly how Greenland and West Antarctica are changing in mass and how much mass they're losing to the ocean. We have other observations of ice quakes on Greenland and ice streams speeding up, and we see processes occurring which make me very concerned about the stability of ice sheets.

SPIEGEL: What exactly do you fear will happen?

Hansen: The disintegration of ice sheets will be a non-linear process, and that means it can change very rapidly. You can have relatively slow changes for a while, but once you reach a certain instability, you get sudden collapse and a very large change. We know pretty well from the history of the earth that when ice sheets have disintegrated in the past, they have disintegrated very rapidly. During the last melting period, the sea level went up 20 meters in 400 years, which is one meter every 20 years.

SPIEGEL: What makes you so sure about such a dramatic melting this time? Other scientists claim this process may take thousands of years.

Hansen: I think that's a very dangerous assumption. I would be very surprised if we didn't get a big change this century. We need to commission a study of this problem and bring in the best scientists so that they can look at it. We need to take action soon.

Swiss glaciers have lost around a half of their volume since 1850.
SPIEGEL: You've made the point that we have only 10 more years to prevent the worst consequences of global warming. Why?

Hansen: Let's contrast two different scenarios. The first one I call business-as-usual which is the typical UN scenario. It shows a continued increase in the annual emissions of CO2 of about 1 or 2 percent per year. That's what leads you to at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius global warming in this century. An alternative scenario is designed to keep global warming at about one additional degree or less. It requires that CO2 emissions actually decrease on a global average by at least a few tens of percent by mid-century. By the end of the century, you have to stabilize things, which means you would need a 60 to 80 percent reduction in emissions.

SPIEGEL: What happens precisely if your business-as-usual scenario applies?

Hansen: This will put us 40 percent above our 2000 emissions ten years from now. Then it will become very difficult to halt global warming and get back to the alternative scenario.

SPIEGEL: What does this mean? When will New York be flooded?

Hansen: That's hard to answer because it is a non-linear process. But this much is clear: the sea level, which up until a century ago was rather stable, increased by about 15 centimeters in the last century and is now increasing at a rate of 35 centimeters per century, 3.5 centimeters per decade. So the rate has gone up, and if it ratchets up a few more times, pretty soon you're talking about really significant change.

SPIEGEL: What other effects do you expect besides this?

Hansen: I'm really concerned about the extermination of species. If climatic zones move, animals and plants need to migrate. Studies have found that 1,700 species have already moved poleward at a rate of six kilometers per decade in recent decades. But climate zones are moving poleward at a faster rate, about 50 km per decade, and it will become 100 km per decade with business as usual. Combine that with the fact that so many species have been confined to certain areas due to humans having taken over so much of the planet, and you'll see it may be very difficult for them to migrate. So it's likely that a large fraction of the species could go extinct.

SPIEGEL: Which nation on earth is most responsible for global warming?

Hansen: Some US politicians are making the argument that China is soon going to be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and that's true. Within a few years, they will pass the US. But climate change depends upon the cumulative emissions over time because much of the CO2 we emitted in 1850 is still here and it's still damaging. So it's not only about the present emissions. Therefore, the US is responsible for more than three times the amount of emissions than any other country, with China and Russia being next, and Germany and Great Britain after that.

SPIEGEL: George W. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto protocoll right at the beginning of his presidency, and he declared he doesn't want to do anything that might hurt the US economy.

Hansen: Who is going to bear the moral burden? The politicians who deny there is a problem today will no longer be in office once the effects of global warming are felt. The frustrating part is that the solutions actually make sense for other reasons.

SPIEGEL: Because changes in US energy use would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?

Hansen: Exactly. Our waste of energy has resulted in all kinds of problems, including the current ones in the Middle East.

SPIEGEL: What needs to be done?

Hansen: We are still facing a solvable problem. Oil and gas are running out anyway and we should use that resource very conservatively. It's amazing how much energy is compacted into these fossil fuels. The architects and building engineers tell us they can now make buildings which use only half as much fossil fuel as current buildings. We have not improved our vehicle efficiency since about 1980. So there is a lot of potential for energy saving. Yet we are wasting these resources. Furthermore, instead of shutting down existing coal plants across the country, American energy corporations are planning to construct 100 new ones.

SPIEGEL: What can people do on a personal level to help slow climate change?

Hansen: If an individual goes out and reduces his emissions, it's a nice example and it shows that it can be done. But even if a lot of people comply, what is the result? It reduces the price of fuel, and then it'll be so cheap, somebody else will burn it.

SPIEGEL: What do you propose instead?

Hansen: The most important thing that people can do is influence the government. The most critical policy element has to be a slowly growing price on carbon emissions. It has to be fast enough to have an impact and affect industries and their investments and innovations. But it has to be slow enough so there is time for these new technologies to develop, so consumers can choose and buy new, more efficient technologies. We should have started on that a long time ago.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Arne

SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH NASA CLIMATE EXPERT JAMES HANSEN
'We Need to Take Action Soon'
James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, spoke to DER SPIEGEL about the causes and consequences of global warming -- and why there are only ten years left to steer the world away from climate catastrophe.


AP
James Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Hansen, temperatures in Central Park reached 22 degrees Celsius (71.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in January, the Alps lacked snow throughout the season -- is winter being erased by global warming?

James Hansen: Weather and climate are two different things, which often confuses people. The average temperature is now 0.8 degrees Celsius higher than in the last century, with three-quarters of the increase happening in the last 30 years. But compared to the usual weather fluctuations, that's quite small. You can have a ten-degree variation from day to day in the weather. You can have anomalies of an average of several degrees over one month, and you still don't have to worry. However, this does not indicate we can stop thinking about this issue: We've just experienced the warmest January in 127 years of record-keeping.

SPIEGEL: Even so, a global warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius over 100 years doesn't sound very dramatic.

Hansen: There's another half degree Celsius in the pipeline due to gases already in the atmosphere, and there's at least one more half degree to come due to power plants which we're not going to stop immediately. Even if we decide now we've got to slow down as fast as is practical, there's still going to be enough emissions to take us to the warmest level that the planet has seen in a million years. That's enough to take us close to and possibly beyond what I would say is a dangerous level.

SPIEGEL: How can you be so sure of that?

Hansen: We know a lot about the history of the Earth. If we want to keep the planet looking close to what it looks like now, then we had better not accept an increase by more than one degree Celsius. Because if temperature goes up another two or three degrees Celsius, it will be the temperature of the middle Pliocene about 3 million years ago. That was a very different planet. There was no sea ice in the Arctic in the warm seasons, and the sea level was about 25 meters higher. We will be headed towards this situation if we continue with business-as-usual.

SPIEGEL: Who or what is responsible for the warming of our planet?

Hansen: I would say it's approximately 102 percent man-made. We know very well that the climate would have been heading towards a colder climate if it weren't for human-made emissions. We've been in an interglacial period now for almost 12,000 years, and we know that this period peaked 6,000 or 8,000 years ago. We were headed slowly toward cooler climates until humans came along. And now humans have sent us off in a completely different direction.

SPIEGEL: Just recently the United Nations Panel on Climate Change declared that it is now 90 percent certain that global warming is real. Doesn't this come a bit late?

Hansen: You know, we said that a long time ago, but that's okay. This panel involves more than one hundred nations including Saudi Arabia and others. Those countries have to be dragged kicking and screaming to this sort of conclusion. The panel, by the way, is very reluctant to say anything about sea level change, although the evidence that has accumulated in the last two or three years is impressive.

SPIEGEL: What does it show?

Hansen: We've gotten fantastic measurements from a gravity satellite. They explain exactly how Greenland and West Antarctica are changing in mass and how much mass they're losing to the ocean. We have other observations of ice quakes on Greenland and ice streams speeding up, and we see processes occurring which make me very concerned about the stability of ice sheets.

SPIEGEL: What exactly do you fear will happen?

Hansen: The disintegration of ice sheets will be a non-linear process, and that means it can change very rapidly. You can have relatively slow changes for a while, but once you reach a certain instability, you get sudden collapse and a very large change. We know pretty well from the history of the earth that when ice sheets have disintegrated in the past, they have disintegrated very rapidly. During the last melting period, the sea level went up 20 meters in 400 years, which is one meter every 20 years.

SPIEGEL: What makes you so sure about such a dramatic melting this time? Other scientists claim this process may take thousands of years.

Hansen: I think that's a very dangerous assumption. I would be very surprised if we didn't get a big change this century. We need to commission a study of this problem and bring in the best scientists so that they can look at it. We need to take action soon.

Swiss glaciers have lost around a half of their volume since 1850.
SPIEGEL: You've made the point that we have only 10 more years to prevent the worst consequences of global warming. Why?

Hansen: Let's contrast two different scenarios. The first one I call business-as-usual which is the typical UN scenario. It shows a continued increase in the annual emissions of CO2 of about 1 or 2 percent per year. That's what leads you to at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius global warming in this century. An alternative scenario is designed to keep global warming at about one additional degree or less. It requires that CO2 emissions actually decrease on a global average by at least a few tens of percent by mid-century. By the end of the century, you have to stabilize things, which means you would need a 60 to 80 percent reduction in emissions.

SPIEGEL: What happens precisely if your business-as-usual scenario applies?

Hansen: This will put us 40 percent above our 2000 emissions ten years from now. Then it will become very difficult to halt global warming and get back to the alternative scenario.

SPIEGEL: What does this mean? When will New York be flooded?

Hansen: That's hard to answer because it is a non-linear process. But this much is clear: the sea level, which up until a century ago was rather stable, increased by about 15 centimeters in the last century and is now increasing at a rate of 35 centimeters per century, 3.5 centimeters per decade. So the rate has gone up, and if it ratchets up a few more times, pretty soon you're talking about really significant change.

SPIEGEL: What other effects do you expect besides this?

Hansen: I'm really concerned about the extermination of species. If climatic zones move, animals and plants need to migrate. Studies have found that 1,700 species have already moved poleward at a rate of six kilometers per decade in recent decades. But climate zones are moving poleward at a faster rate, about 50 km per decade, and it will become 100 km per decade with business as usual. Combine that with the fact that so many species have been confined to certain areas due to humans having taken over so much of the planet, and you'll see it may be very difficult for them to migrate. So it's likely that a large fraction of the species could go extinct.

SPIEGEL: Which nation on earth is most responsible for global warming?

Hansen: Some US politicians are making the argument that China is soon going to be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and that's true. Within a few years, they will pass the US. But climate change depends upon the cumulative emissions over time because much of the CO2 we emitted in 1850 is still here and it's still damaging. So it's not only about the present emissions. Therefore, the US is responsible for more than three times the amount of emissions than any other country, with China and Russia being next, and Germany and Great Britain after that.

SPIEGEL: George W. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto protocoll right at the beginning of his presidency, and he declared he doesn't want to do anything that might hurt the US economy.

Hansen: Who is going to bear the moral burden? The politicians who deny there is a problem today will no longer be in office once the effects of global warming are felt. The frustrating part is that the solutions actually make sense for other reasons.

SPIEGEL: Because changes in US energy use would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?

Hansen: Exactly. Our waste of energy has resulted in all kinds of problems, including the current ones in the Middle East.

SPIEGEL: What needs to be done?

Hansen: We are still facing a solvable problem. Oil and gas are running out anyway and we should use that resource very conservatively. It's amazing how much energy is compacted into these fossil fuels. The architects and building engineers tell us they can now make buildings which use only half as much fossil fuel as current buildings. We have not improved our vehicle efficiency since about 1980. So there is a lot of potential for energy saving. Yet we are wasting these resources. Furthermore, instead of shutting down existing coal plants across the country, American energy corporations are planning to construct 100 new ones.

SPIEGEL: What can people do on a personal level to help slow climate change?

Hansen: If an individual goes out and reduces his emissions, it's a nice example and it shows that it can be done. But even if a lot of people comply, what is the result? It reduces the price of fuel, and then it'll be so cheap, somebody else will burn it.

SPIEGEL: What do you propose instead?

Hansen: The most important thing that people can do is influence the government. The most critical policy element has to be a slowly growing price on carbon emissions. It has to be fast enough to have an impact and affect industries and their investments and innovations. But it has to be slow enough so there is time for these new technologies to develop, so consumers can choose and buy new, more efficient technologies. We should have started on that a long time ago.

Nobody cares... hmmm

[dude1394]

Okay...let's assume that I'm on board with global warming being caused primarily by man. Just for the sake of argument. So what's to be done.

If we are going to actually do something here this guy makes the most sense to me. So it appears if we are serious about global warming we should double our gasoline prices with a tax and double our electricity/natural gas prices with a tax. Then give the dollars back to the people in other tax cuts.

Of course this won't solve the problem worldwide (kyoto won't either) but it would at least starve the oil barons in the middle east and hopefully develop quite a bit of alternatives. I don't hold out much hope of that to be honest, but having the guvment try to mandate this stuff is insane imo. It's just making jobs for lobbyists.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/S..._warming_fight

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and the wind is blowing hard in favor of action on climate change. The Bush administration now agrees that human activities are warming the planet, the Supreme Court says the Environmental Protection Agency has violated the law by not regulating auto emissions, and Democrats in Congress are demanding new measures to cut greenhouse gases.

How will we address this new challenge? The most plausible answer is: with a lot of command-and-control programs that micromanage various industries on the assumption that the government knows best. In a word, badly.


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, right, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., take part in a debate on global warming, Tuesday, April 10, 2007, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)

Reducing the output of carbon dioxide and other substances that trap the Earth's heat is not cheap. But there are expensive solutions, and there are astronomical ones. Any new policy should aim at getting the greatest reductions for the least money.

That may sound like a hugely complex task for the government, but it's not. The free market is the best system ever created for providing what we want at the lowest possible cost. The way to get affordable amelioration of climate change is to put the market to work finding solutions. To achieve that, we merely need to make energy prices reflect the potential harm done by greenhouse gases.

How? With a carbon tax that assesses fuels according to how much they pollute. Coal, having the highest carbon content, would be taxed the most, followed by oil and natural gas. The higher prices for the most damaging fuels would encourage people and companies to use less of them and more of other types of energy, including nuclear, solar, wind and biofuels. This approach would also affect all sources -- not just cars, which account for only one-fifth of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

A carbon tax, however, has one huge drawback: It's a tax, and neither Republicans nor Democrats want to impose a new tax. They would rather address fossil fuel consumption by boosting auto fuel economy standards, pouring money into alternative fuel research and requiring greater use of ethanol.

Did I say Republicans and Democrats don't want to impose a tax? I lied. The truth is they don't want to impose a visible tax. All the subsidies, rules and mandates you hear about don't come free, but you pay for them without realizing it -- and without realizing whom to blame.

Government programs to reduce greenhouse gases are a recipe for waste and abuse. Federal "investment" in alternative fuels? That idea got a full tryout during the energy crisis of the 1970s, with meager results. Tax breaks for ethanol? Largely self-defeating, since they encourage farmers to burn fossil fuels to expand production of corn.

The government's fuel economy standards also haven't done much to promote conservation. On average, new vehicles get lower mileage today than they did 20 years ago, thanks to the proliferation of large trucks and SUVs.

The Supreme Court decision precipitated a clamor for stricter mileage rules, which happen to a supremely clumsy answer. The only people immediately affected by higher fuel economy standards are those who buy new vehicles. Other motorists will keep driving their gas-guzzling cars and trucks for years to come, blissfully spared any incentive to conserve. A carbon tax, by contrast, would spur faster progress by raising the cost of driving to everyone.

It also has the advantage of keeping the government role as small as possible. When the government gets directly involved in controlling energy use -- by fiddling with mileage rules, handing out grants and tax incentives, and underwriting particular energy sources -- it invites boondoggles and special-interest gimmicks that benefit politicians without doing much to temper climate change. We'll all be better off if Washington merely levies a tax and gets out of the way, leaving producers and consumers to search out the cheapest means of minimizing emissions.

Of course, no one wants to pay more in taxes. Here's the good news: We don't have to. Some economists propose that carbon tax revenues be used to finance equal cuts in income and payroll taxes. That way, we'd get environmental improvements and a lighter load on companies and workers. Meanwhile, the total tax burden on the economy would be unchanged.

The campaign against global warming promises to be costly and uncomfortable under the best of policies. But if we let it become an excuse for bureaucrats and busybodies to meddle needlessly in our lives, it promises to be even worse, for us and the planet.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

Nobody cares... hmmm

I don't care much for his solutions that's for sure. Some sort of global UN energy czar telling everyone which energy is good/bad. So he's willing to just stall growth by not investing in clean coal for example? If he'd have just come out and said let's create a global tax on oil for everyone that might make some sense. The idea of creating anything globally to solve this is asinine.

I also don't trust many folks who deal in absolutes carbon emissions without correlating that with gdp. It's fudging the numbers.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I also think that at first, to raise the tax for oil and electricity/natural gases by a big amount, will force the people to rethink. But as I can see in Germany, a few month after the big raise, the people go back to their old habits.

So I would be in favour to have only a moderate rise in taxes and that the government has to bring preassure to bear on the industry to use energy sparing technologies. Especially the auto industry has to build cars with less consumption and in this way environmentally friendlier, as this technology is developed long time ago. Here the consumer could also bring preassure to bear by stop buying cars with big consumption! To solve problems at it´s roots is by far the best way to do something.

In my opinion it´s a real shame to waste such valuable commodities like fossil fuel. You have to consider that oil for example is one of the most important base materials in the manufacturing of medical products.

[dude1394]

Germany ISN'T the US. If the price of gas increased by o' say double, the US would change quite a bit of it's behaviour. And since we are so "bad" that would probably solve the problem completely.

The cars in germany/france are already much smaller than the size of the cars in the US. So we basically cut the size of the cars to the size in europe but that's not enough for you? I don't get it, it would do the same thing as raising car mileage by governement fiat, but you don't like that because it's not by government fiat?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

STo solve problems at it´s roots is by far the best way to do something.

This is what I don't get. Raising the price of energy is COMPLETELY solving the problem by it's roots. Not a bunch of politicians who get to pick and choose who wins/loses. For some reason you think that federal action is solving problems by it's roots, I couldn't disagree more, it just causes waste.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

This is what I don't get. Raising the price of energy is COMPLETELY solving the problem by it's roots.

Germany ISN'T the US. If the price of gas increased by o' say double, the US would change quite a bit of it's behaviour.

This is something I´m not so sure about, as the man is a creature of it´s habit and you get accustomed to everything, even to high energy prices. For me, the best is to use environmentally friendly technology, so you are not that dependent on the behavior of the people. But everyone his own opinion. I wouldn´t have anything against, to double the energy prices. If you are right and the people change their habits regarding energy consumption, well done. I think it´s not fair to burden only the consumer. The burden has to be averaged equitably between the consumer and the industry as both are accountable for the problem of man made global warming.

It is a substantial progress to cut the size of cars, but it´s more important to construct engines with less consumption instead of building smaller cars.

It´s not the point for me to have a government fiat, but I don´t think the auto industry would voluntary construct engines with less consumption as I think the consumer in USA prefer cars with big engines. Because of that I said that it would bring preassure to bear, if the consumer would refuse to buy those cars.

I don´t think the American are that "bad", I think there is a little hope left.

I for one am a big fan of USA and it would be a dream for me to live there. Maybe if I have enough money in the future I will try to migrate in the USA. Provided that the humanity, by destroying of the environment or other reasons, hasn´t demolished itself. I think, once this will work out for me, the only thing I would definitely miss, is the good German and especially Bavarian beer.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

This is something I´m not so sure about, as the man is a creature of it´s habit and you get accustomed to everything, even to high energy prices. For me, the best is to use environmentally friendly technology, so you are not that dependent on the behavior of the people. But everyone his own opinion. I wouldn´t have anything against, to double the energy prices. If you are right and the people change their habits regarding energy consumption, well done.

but high prices would create a demand for that environmentally friendly technology. Without wasteful guvment direction.

It is a substantial progress to cut the size of cars, but it´s more important to construct engines with less consumption instead of building smaller cars.

Again who's going to construct those engines? Not government, they are complete morons at that stuff. You need to give individuals and companies incentives to make a bundle off of their creations, then you would get them. Without the price of gasoline going up you will always have to force companies to try and create, it's really wasteful.

It´s not the point for me to have a government fiat, but I don´t think the auto industry would voluntary construct engines with less consumption as I think the consumer in USA prefer cars with big engines. Because of that I said that it would bring preassure to bear, if the consumer would refuse to buy those cars.

I think your bias is showing here. What does less consumption engines have to do with big engines or size of cars for that matter. Unless you are assuming that the only way to get less consumption engines is to reduce the speed a car can go. If the engine is more efficient, then it would sell more for the same size car. I would imagine the auto industry is feverishly working on more efficient engines.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

but high prices would create a demand for that environmentally friendly technology. Without wasteful guvment direction.

Probably right, but my opinion to this is:

If you are right and the people change their habits regarding energy consumption, well done. I think it´s not fair to burden only the consumer. The burden has to be averaged equitably between the consumer and the industry as both are accountable for the problem of man made global warming.

Again who's going to construct those engines? Not government, they are complete morons at that stuff. You need to give individuals and companies incentives to make a bundle off of their creations, then you would get them. Without the price of gasoline going up you will always have to force companies to try and create, it's really wasteful.

Of course not, but the government has the possibility to enact a law, which postulates that the auto industry has to construct engines with a required lower consumption and therefore CO2 emission. Additionally I wrote:

Especially the auto industry has to build cars with less consumption and in this way environmentally friendlier, as this technology is developed long time ago. Here the consumer could also bring preassure to bear by stop buying cars with big consumption!

So if there is no market for cars with high consumption, maybe the industry will start to realign in the matter of engines and consumption.

I think your bias is showing here. What does less consumption engines have to do with big engines or size of cars for that matter. Unless you are assuming that the only way to get less consumption engines is to reduce the speed a car can go.

Unfortunately, bigger cars are heavier, have a larger aerodynamic drag and therefore a higher consumption. A bigger engine (cylinder capacity) mostly has more horsepower and a higher consumption. To regulate the speed is also a good way to reduce the CO2 emissions.

If the engine is more efficient, then it would sell more for the same size car. I would imagine the auto industry is feverishly working on more efficient engines.

This is a very good aproach and the auto industry has developed engines with less consumption long time ago. The problem is that the oil industry isn´t interested in cars with less consumption. Many of those who make money with oil do hold stock in the auto companies and sometimes they even have the majority of stock. So the auto companies will guard against antagonize those stockholders.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Germany ISN'T the US. If the price of gas increased by o' say double, the US would change quite a bit of it's behaviour. And since we are so "bad" that would probably solve the problem completely.

The cars in germany/france are already much smaller than the size of the cars in the US. So we basically cut the size of the cars to the size in europe but that's not enough for you? I don't get it, it would do the same thing as raising car mileage by governement fiat, but you don't like that because it's not by government fiat?

I'm with you on that one, Americans have to travel for miles in order to get to work, Germans just don't have to. In America it's of great use to have a pickup truck in some regions, in Germany that isn't the case at all. The influence of petrol prices is not very strong in Germany, because Germans don't have to drive very long distances.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I'm with you on that one, Americans have to travel for miles in order to get to work, Germans just don't have to. In America it's of great use to have a pickup truck in some regions, in Germany that isn't the case at all. The influence of petrol prices is not very strong in Germany, because Germans don't have to drive very long distances.

So this would confirm my opinion, that:

...it´s not fair to burden only the consumer. The burden has to be averaged equitably between the consumer and the industry as both are accountable for the problem of man made global warming.

and to

...have only a moderate rise in taxes and that the government has to bring preassure to bear on the industry to use energy sparing technologies.

...the government has the possibility to enact a law, which postulates that the auto industry has to construct engines with a required lower consumption and therefore CO2 emission.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Probably right, but my opinion to this is: Of course not, but the government has the possibility to enact a law, which postulates that the auto industry has to construct engines with a required lower consumption and therefore CO2 emission.

Why not just make a law saying they should run on water too? Don't you think europe/japan/china/us are all trying to make engines more efficient? I mean the whole world isn't in the pockets of big oil companies are they? A little bit of tin-hat-thinking here.

To regulate the speed is also a good way to reduce the CO2 emissions.

No,no,no,no.. This is why environmentalists (and government) should stay completely out of this. They'll make silly decisions like a speed limit to save a measely few gallons a year but cost people many hours of their lives. Another good reason that Carter was one of the dumbest presidents in history.

This is a very good aproach and the auto industry has developed engines with less consumption long time ago. The problem is that the oil industry isn´t interested in cars with less consumption.

Have to say prove it. Again you really aren't thinking clearly if you don't think Toyota isn't going to market an engine that's as great as you say it is. The oil industry does not control the world, no matter what AlGore says.

Many of those who make money with oil do hold stock in the auto companies and sometimes they even have the majority of stock. So the auto companies will guard against antagonize those stockholders.

Again prove it. You are telling me that GM/Ford/Chrysler-Dahmler/Toyota/Mitsubishi/Nissan/BMW/Volkswagon/Hyundai
are in the pockets of the oil companies and are keeping more efficient engines off the market. You do realize how ridiculous that sounds don't you?

[dude1394]

If you are right and the people change their habits regarding energy consumption, well done. I think it´s not fair to burden only the consumer. The burden has to be averaged equitably between the consumer and the industry as both are accountable for the problem of man made global warming.

It's really weird to me how folks don't realize that industry is just made up of people making a living, working hard to put food on their table. Like a company is some sort of alien being that doesn't have to make payroll, provide medical benefits and most of all, compete in the marketplace.

I work for a big company that makes semiconductors for phones. We make a lot of them, it's the third biggest semiconductor company in the world. But I will tell you that we obsess over every single penny that goes into our product, we recycle, we re-use solar energy to heat/cool our buildings, completely automated light systems when people are not in the building. We don't do this to be nice, we do it to SAVE MONEY. Almost any successful company is the same way, they have to compete, they have to hustle or someone will kick their ass and take their business.

Except one. Government. They don't have to hustle, or save money, they just print more and tax people (and companies => people) more when they need it.

Sure companies can squander money too, but if they aren't providing either superior service or value (unless they are Airbus or something) they'll be out of business.

After that rant the point is energy is used by everyone and automobiles probably aren't even the biggest user. If you want to be seriouis about this you can't start taking sides on where the savings will come from, you just have to get the savings.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Why not just make a law saying they should run on water too? Don't you think europe/japan/china/us are all trying to make engines more efficient? I mean the whole world isn't in the pockets of big oil companies are they? A little bit of tin-hat-thinking here.

Do you have a technology in USA which enables cars to run by water? That would be nice and I would favor this solution. Of course they develop more eco-friendly cars but those are not very popular, as they mostly are smaller or slower or more expensive. Not the whole world is in the pockets of big oil companies, but they surely invest in companies, which promise advantages for their business. Don´t you think they bring preassure to bear on those companies they invest and are large shareholders of?

No,no,no,no.. This is why environmentalists (and government) should stay completely out of this. They'll make silly decisions like a speed limit to save a measely few gallons a year but cost people many hours of their lives. Another good reason that Carter was one of the dumbest presidents in history.

No,no,no,no.. The environmentalists (and government) shouldn´t stay completely out of this... But they will, as it would annoy their voters. I can see it by your reaction. And even if you don´t want to hear it: yes, yes, yes, yes.. To regulate speed is a good way to reduce CO2 emissions, especially in USA where the population (as you said) drives a lot more than in other countries. Many a little makes a mickle!

Have to say prove it. Again you really aren't thinking clearly if you don't think Toyota isn't going to market an engine that's as great as you say it is. The oil industry does not control the world, no matter what AlGore says.

There are a lot of cars with low consumption and CO2 emission, but they are not very sexy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-energy_vehicle
Here is a even longer list of those cars, it´s in german, but if you scroll down, you will find it: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niedrigenergiefahrzeug
As I said above, the oil industry doesn´t control the world, but they affect assuredly the decisions of those companies, which they are shareholders of.

Again prove it. You are telling me that GM/Ford/Chrysler-Dahmler/Toyota/Mitsubishi/Nissan/BMW/Volkswagon/Hyundai
are in the pockets of the oil companies and are keeping more efficient engines off the market. You do realize how ridiculous that sounds don't you?

This sounds ridiculous for you? I don´t want to search the internet and the annual statistics of the auto companies, but if you look to Daimler Chrysler for example, you will notice that the State of Kuwait is the second and the Emirate of Dubai the 5th largest shareholder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DaimlerChrysler

But I will tell you that we obsess over every single penny that goes into our product, we recycle, we re-use solar energy to heat/cool our buildings, completely automated light systems when people are not in the building. We don't do this to be nice, we do it to SAVE MONEY. Almost any successful company is the same way, they have to compete, they have to hustle or someone will kick their ass and take their business.

Very exemplary, as this is a great way to save the company money, and as a byproduct do something for the environment. Unfortunatelly this might not be the standard case. I think a lot of companies can learn therefrom.

After that rant the point is energy is used by everyone and automobiles probably aren't even the biggest user. If you want to be seriouis about this you can't start taking sides on where the savings will come from, you just have to get the savings.

No, automobiles aren´t the biggest users, but as it isn´t possible to stop the trend of global warming completely anyway, every contribution (even the little ones) are important. And if you want to make a difference, everybody has to make a sacrifice.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Do you have a technology in USA which enables cars to run by water? That would be nice and I would favor this solution.

No I was being facetious. Of course there are not or we would all have one. My point is the government could make a law tommorrow saying that cars should get 100mpg but that won't do nearly as much as tripling the cost of gasoline. Because it's folks working hard, innovating and taking risks that make this stuff happen, not a governement law. Guvment can help with fundamental research dollars but that's about it.

Of course they develop more eco-friendly cars but those are not very popular, as they mostly are smaller or slower or more expensive. Not the whole world is in the pockets of big oil companies, but they surely invest in companies, which promise advantages for their business. Don´t you think they bring preassure to bear on those companies they invest and are large shareholders of?

They are not popular because they suck. They are either too small or lack enough power to compete. People are making a tradeoff on how much they will pay for transportation versus how much the car sucks.

No,no,no,no.. The environmentalists (and government) shouldn´t stay completely out of this... But they will, as it would annoy their voters. I can see it by your reaction.

Oh I have not doubt they won't keep out of it, it's in their nature to try and get the guvment to have more control of everyone (and thereby giving themselves more control over everyone). Since they know better than everyone, they believe they need to have the government force everyone to conform to their thinking. It's worked for many things.

And even if you don´t want to hear it: yes, yes, yes, yes.. To regulate speed is a good way to reduce CO2 emissions, especially in USA where the population (as you said) drives a lot more than in other countries. Many a little makes a mickle!

Sheesh man...Why not mandate turning off the lights at 7:00 as well or just go ahead and ration electricity, that would do a much better job. But let's just force folks to waste even more hours commutting.

There are a lot of cars with low consumption and CO2 emission, but they are not very sexy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-energy_vehicle
Here is a even longer list of those cars, it´s in german, but if you scroll down, you will find it: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niedrigenergiefahrzeug
As I said above, the oil industry doesn´t control the world, but they affect assuredly the decisions of those companies, which they are shareholders of.

You really are being silly. Stockholders control those companies (autom makers) and if they weren't profitable they'd be out of business... period. Oil companies "might" be able to do something like buyup technology and bury it but that's not in their interests either. They would just augment their profits. As we both know oil isn't going anywhere soon.

I don´t want to search the internet and the annual statistics of the auto companies, but if you look to Daimler Chrysler for example, you will notice that the State of Kuwait is the second and the Emirate of Dubai the 5th largest shareholder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DaimlerChrysler
n

So what?? They have to do something with those petrodollars. You are making a huge leap here about investors (in stock) having that much to do with the direction of the company. Kuwait could sell their stock tommorrow and nothing would happen to what Chrysler does to make money...sell cars.[/quote]

Very exemplary, as this is a great way to save the company money, and as a byproduct do something for the environment. Unfortunatelly this might not be the standard case. I think a lot of companies can learn therefrom.

You are missing the point. Every company has to compete, unless there is no competition(utilities, guvment, etc). Companies that have to compete will react to higher energy prices by investing in new technology and procedures to reduce those costs, or they won't be profitable and will go bankrupt.

No, automobiles aren´t the biggest users, but as it isn´t possible to stop the trend of global warming completely anyway, every contribution (even the little ones) are important. And if you want to make a difference, everybody has to make a sacrifice.

I'm calling for no more air-condition! Oh forgot france tried that and about 10k old folks died in summer. Don't get silly on me.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

No I was being facetious. Of course there are not or we would all have one.

Do you think I´m dopy! Of course this was meant bantering.

My point is the government could make a law tommorrow saying that cars should get 100mpg but that won't do nearly as much as tripling the cost of gasoline.

Yes they will sell less gasoline if the cars have a lower consumption but that this will lead to a tripling of the gasoline cost is a little far-fetched. Also there are laws against profiteering.

They are not popular because they suck. They are either too small or lack enough power to compete. People are making a tradeoff on how much they will pay for transportation versus how much the car sucks.

We discuss about doing something for the environment and you bother how big and strong and cool looking a car is? Weak argument.

Oh I have not doubt they won't keep out of it, it's in their nature to try and get the guvment to have more control of everyone (and thereby giving themselves more control over everyone). Since they know better than everyone, they believe they need to have the government force everyone to conform to their thinking. It's worked for many things.

At first we have a freedom of opinion. Second the adversaries of the environmentalists are not one iota better and will also intervene (and do it already). To get control lies in the human nature.

Sheesh man...Why not mandate turning off the lights at 7:00 as well or just go ahead and ration electricity, that would do a much better job. But let's just force folks to waste even more hours commutting.

You can´t mean this serious. There is a lttle difference to drive slower and to turn out the lights. You think the people not even will accept a little more inconvinience to do something for the environment and therewith the future of our children? Because of the traffic volume, there are mostly not many possibilities to drive fast anyhow.

You really are being silly.

No need to get abusive, if you run out of good arguments.

Oil companies "might" be able to do something like buyup technology and bury it but that's not in their interests either. They would just augment their profits.

It will augment their profits, if cars have a high consumption, as they sell the oil for the gasoline.

So what?? They have to do something with those petrodollars. You are making a huge leap here about investors (in stock) having that much to do with the direction of the company.

Here is what you wrote before:

Stockholders control those companies (autom makers) and if they weren't profitable they'd be out of business... period.

Kuwait could sell their stock tommorrow and nothing would happen to what Chrysler does to make money...sell cars.

Why would they do this? Why should they weaken their influence on the companies, as they are interested in selling oil and therewith that the auto companies sell more cars at best with high consumption?

You are missing the point. Every company has to compete, unless there is no competition(utilities, guvment, etc). Companies that have to compete will react to higher energy prices by investing in new technology and procedures to reduce those costs, or they won't be profitable and will go bankrupt.

At first, it´s an exaggeration that they will go bankrupt because of higher energy prices. There are definitely way better possibilities to save money or to adjust higher energy prices, than to use energy saving technologies.

I'm calling for no more air-condition! Oh forgot france tried that and about 10k old folks died in summer. Don't get silly on me.

The point is not to remove air-conditioning. You have to design the buildings in a way, that air-conditions with a lower wattage can be used. And the hot summer in france with 10k deaths you talked about, was an occurrence which happens once a century. Probably caused by the global warming? So if we don´t do something against this trend such a summer could happen more often than only once a century, and not only in france.

[TheBlueVan]

Dude and Zoidberg, just to interject as a total sidenote...

there is a car invented by a Frenchman that runs completely on compressed air. it goes about 70 mph and is in the late prototype stage (ie, he has a completely working model). as it stands right not, the car has to pick up tanks of compressed air or be plugged into a wall to compress the air with a generator. the inventor is currently working on an air-powered air-compressor.

if he could do that, the car would be completely self-sufficient, run off of air, and the only exhaust is cold air molecules!

we need more ingenuity like this

[Dr.Zoidberg]

[dude1394]

Maybe we could have a hose hooked up to our butts, eat a lot of beans and run off methane.

I'm not sure if you are being serious thebluevan it would be interesting to see the acceleration and the distance per tank. Also the amount of energy it would take to fill up that tank.

[TheBlueVan]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Maybe we could have a hose hooked up to our butts, eat a lot of beans and run off methane.

I'm not sure if you are being serious thebluevan it would be interesting to see the acceleration and the distance per tank. Also the amount of energy it would take to fill up that tank.

i watched it in a 5 hr future car nerdfest on the discovery channel. they were talking about this car first being used as taxis in big cities, so i think then the acceleration would really be irrelevant and as far as distance per tank, if the inventor builds the airpowered air-compressor, fill ups as we know them would be irrelevant.

the car works similar to an internal combustion engine, but rather than combusting fuels to drive the pistons, it powers them with compressed air injected directly

i was just trying to make the point that there are tons of alternatives out there, they just arent getting the backing and the attention that they should

how about the new 450 hp lexus hybrid? that thing is saweet. see what you can do with technology and imagination? (take note GM and Ford)

[dude1394]

I think I've read that hyrbrids aren't living up to their billing.

But I imagine that if this guy finds a way to make this work, he will get plenty of backing. It's called venture capital, happens all of the time.

[dude1394]

From NYTImes and instapundit.

THE NEW YORK TIMES ON SOLAR POWER:

You may go solar, though, in order to encourage the new technology, or in order to demonstrate your own commitment to clean energy. I'd guess that those are Al Gore's motivations.

[TheBlueVan]

no one said it was cheaper, especially not now when no one has really attempted to push forward with alternative energy and make it "mainstream energy"

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by TheBlueVan

no one said it was cheaper, especially not now when no one has really attempted to push forward with alternative energy and make it "mainstream energy"

Are you talking about solar? That's been being worked on for decades.

[come_on_now]

Global warming is just a freak rise in swamp gas. It will clear up by Monday. Nothing to see here, move along.

[TheBlueVan]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Are you talking about solar? That's been being worked on for decades.

no, im talking about wind/biofuel/any sort of alternative-fueled car. a few years ago a dutch group formulated a plan to generate massive amounts of electricity by harnessing the energy where salt-water meets freshwater at the mouth of a river (im pretty hazy on the details, i read it a long time ago)

theres enough wind in west texas alone to meet 40% of america's energy needs

the problem is fossil fuels are cheap, the infrastructure is in place, and certain parties dont want the gravy train to end, so they just shut down people who come in with new ideas (i.e the Tucker automobile, the steam powered car)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by TheBlueVan

no, im talking about wind/biofuel/any sort of alternative-fueled car. a few years ago a dutch group formulated a plan to generate massive amounts of electricity by harnessing the energy where salt-water meets freshwater at the mouth of a river (im pretty hazy on the details, i read it a long time ago)

theres enough wind in west texas alone to meet 40% of america's energy needs

the problem is fossil fuels are cheap, the infrastructure is in place, and certain parties dont want the gravy train to end, so they just shut down people who come in with new ideas (i.e the Tucker automobile, the steam powered car)

Wind car? I just don't think you realize how efficient oil is. All of the items you are talking about suffer from an inability to scale. For example the wind farms..well whattya' do when the wind stops? You still need lights, refrigerant, electricity for sensitive chemical processes. Not to mention if you are talking enviromental items, the numbers of wildlife that will be killed by those windmills would dwarf the stupidity we heard about ANWAR damager.

Those things can supplement but it's going to take nuclear to put a dent in any of this.

As far as companies stiffling alternative energy that's really a tin-foil-hat type of claim. "Possibly" in the 40s before there was global competition. But do you seriously think someone who created an alternative energy product isn't going to sell it and make a zillion bucks. All they have to do is file a patent and they are off.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

You can say that none of the alternative technologies can be used alone at the moment, they have to complement each other.

To windfarms: It´s not that good to use them on land because it changes the overall appearance of the landscape, endangers wildlife (birds) and is not reliable enough as the wind strength changes a lot (although there are areas with very constant wind conditions).

The better way for windfarms is to make them offshore. The advantage: Very constant wind conditions, less danger of killing wildlife (if the windfarms are build far enough away from the coast) and the landscape is not so much affected (even here it´s importand to construct them far enough from the coast, that you can´t see them).

An altenative technologie which is able to supply us with energy at it´s own, unfortunately has still to be developed.

[dude1394]

If windfarms (solar, geothermal, whatever) can beat coal and gas and nuclear, go for it.

Right now I don't see it. Nuclear seems to be the only decent alternative, ethanol is okay only in that it's not subsidizing the middle east.

Most of this stuff is pretty harebrained economically, but makes sense politically so I'm not to upset about wasting money to do it. Coal gassification/oil shale technology looks better to me than most of these other alternatives, but I'm not crazy about having to ship 1/2 dollars of taxpayer money per gallon to get there. Probably just investing in clean coal technology makes more sense and going more and more to electric transportation.

The problem is really a massive one and won't be solved by a lot of silly renewables like windfarms.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I wouldn´t declare windfarms or the other renewables as silly, but I prove you right that at the moment it´s impossible to satisfy the demand of energy only with alternative technologies.

If you reduce the pollution of usual energy generating processes, by developing better and more efficient technologies, it´s also a good way to protect the environment.

[dude1394]

Windfarms in particular are interesting to me to see the enviromentalists become their own hypocrites. Offshore drilling bad but this




Is okay. "Bothering" caribou up in Anwar is bad but...

Deadly to Birds

Wind machines can also have an environmental impact on wildlife. They are considered something of a hazard to migratory birds. The birds fly into the blades and are killed. Since many migratory birds already suffer the hardship of lost habitat, this can pose quite a secondary threat to their population. For example, in a study conducted in 1992 by the California Energy Commission, thirty-nine golden eagles, out of about five hundred breeding pairs, were killed at the Altamont Pass wind farm. For this reason, scientists are studying the flight patterns of migratory birds more thoroughly, and wind farmers are trying not to build in migratory birds' flight paths.

Is sorta okay until we figure it out.

[dude1394]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04212007...ulz.htm?page=2

GREEN MYTHS

By MAX SCHULZ

April 21, 2007 -- AS we mark the 38th Earth Day tomorrow, it's worth noting that this secular "religion" has led many Americans to fervently believe some things that just aren't true.

Environmentalist values plainly deserve a place in making public policy. But we shouldn't be guided by myths that are provably false.

Yet a recent survey by Zogby International for the Manhattan Institute found that, when it comes to energy and the environment, the public is more inclined to believe myths than to have a firm grasp of basic facts.

Polling 1,000 average Americans on assorted energy and environmental issues, we found a wide disconnect between what people "know" and what is actually true.

What are the myths propagated by the Church of Environmentalism? Consider the pronouncements from the greens' "Vatican": Last Earth Day, Greenpeace USA exhorted its followers to action because "our forests are being destroyed at an unprecedented rate." More, we must switch to "clean alternative" energies like wind power, because "we all know that fossil fuels contribute to global warming."

A lot of people agree. Nearly 67 percent of those in our survey said they believe human activity, such as logging and development, is shrinking our forests. It seems self-evident; after all, the population continues to grow, and we build more and bigger buildings. So why wouldn't we be losing forestland?

But it's not so. Yes, the United States lost forestland throughout much of the 19th century, as the new nation grew - but the amount of forestland stabilized throughout much of the 20th century.

You can thank technology and progress for that, not any government scheme to save trees. The fact is that our footprint over nature is shrinking - because housing and industry don't require anything approaching the acreage that farming demands, and we now need smaller and smaller spaces to provide the necessities of life.

Machines have replaced work animals (also cutting down the land needed for grazing). Crops deliver richer yields in smaller spaces. Today we harvest 80 million fewer acres of cropland than we did 60 years ago. And our overall per-capita timber consumption is half of what it was a century ago.

Result? According to the Forest Service, we have actually seen a net reforestation since 1985. We aren't losing forestland, we're gaining it.

Greenpeace's call for replacing fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives might make sense, but only if there were any realistic alternatives available. Presently renewable energies like wind power, solar power and ethanol aren't close to being able to substitute for the coal, natural gas and oil that make up the lion's share of our energy sources. Coal provides half our electricity today. Wind and solar provide less than 1 percent.

More, alternative fuels can be as land-hungry as agriculture. The typical 1,000 megawatt coal or nuclear plant might sit on a few acres. To generate the same amount of electricity with renewables would require 60,000 acres for a utility-scale wind farm, or about 11,000 acres of photovoltaic cells capturing the sun's light.

Ethanol, too, can't be produced in the massive quantities required to make a significant dent in our gasoline consumption - and its production depends on vast tracts of farmland, too.

Other myths?

* More than four of every five poll respondents said that our cities are getting dirtier. In fact, pollution has been slashed since 1970, and our cities are far cleaner today.

* A majority believes our chief supplier of foreign oil is Saudi Arabia. In fact, it is our friendly neighbor to the north, Canada. All told the Persian Gulf supplies just 17 percent of the oil we import, and just 11 percent of all the oil we use.

This Earth Day, Greenpeace and its fellow environmental ecclesiasts will once again call on their flocks to take action. By all means, let us safeguard the environment - but with steps rooted in fact, not myth.

Max Schulz is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and author of "Energy and the Environment: Myths and Facts."

[TheBlueVan]

you know dude, i did always find that funny about windfarms. they look TERRIBLE...

here's my opinion in a nutshell though. we have such incredible resources of money, education and ingenuity, we should be able to come up with viable alternatives for energy that have less of a lasting impact on the environment.

whether you think global warming is real or not, it wouldnt hurt to clean up the world a little you know? i know you think its "not economically feasible" or whatever, i can see that too. but, i dont think we should undersell our ability to invent viable solutions to these problems.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I prove you right dude and I have the same opinion that windfarms are not the best solution, therefore I wrote:

To windfarms: It´s not that good to use them on land because it changes the overall appearance of the landscape, endangers wildlife (birds)...

And as one of the solutions for windfarms I wrote:

The better way for windfarms is to make them offshore. The advantage: Very constant wind conditions, less danger of killing wildlife (if the windfarms are build far enough away from the coast) and the landscape is not so much affected (even here it´s importand to construct them far enough from the coast, that you can´t see them).

Furthermore it´s anyway impossible to satisfy the demand of energy only with windfarms and therefore shenanigans to build to much of them. So windfarms should be understood as addition to the renewable energy mix.