The Global Warming Metathread

S&L: Discussion of matters pertaining to theoretical and applied sciences, and logical thought.

Moderator: Charon

Post Reply
User avatar
Caz
Master
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 1:52 am
19
Contact:

#1 The Global Warming Metathread

Post by Caz »

Everything from the Kyoto protocol to debates to information can be posted here. :D

Do YOU think global warming is bullshit?

And here's an article to set it off:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11 ... index.html

MONTREAL, Quebec (AP) -- U.S. officials told a U.N. conference on climate change that their government was doing more than most to protect Earth's atmosphere.

In response, leading environmental groups blasted Washington for refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada opened the 10-day U.N. Climate Control Conference on Monday, with about 10,000 experts from 180 nations, to brainstorm on ways to slow the effects of greenhouse gases and global warming. The conference aims to forge agreements on cutting poisonous emissions, considered by many scientists to be the planet's most pressing environmental issue.

Dr. Harlan L. Watson, senior climate negotiator for the U.S. Department of State, said that while President Bush declined to join the treaty, the U.S. leader takes global warming seriously. He noted greenhouse gas emissions had gone down by 0.8 percent under Bush.

"With regard to what the United States is doing on climate change, the actions we have taken are next to none in the world," Watson told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the conference.

He is leading a delegation of dozens of American officials at the conference and will be joined by U.S. Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky next week, when 120 government ministers arrive for the high-profile final negotiations.

Watson said the United States spends more than $5 billion (euro4.3 billion) a year on efforts to slow the deterioration of Earth's atmosphere by supporting climate change research and technology and that Bush had committed to cutting greenhouses gases 18 percent by 2012.

Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club Canada, however, accused Washington of trying to derail the Kyoto accord.

"We have a lot of positive, constructive American engagement here in Montreal -- and none of it's from the Bush administration, which represents the single biggest threat to global progress," May said, adding that Washington had "continually tried to derail" the Kyoto process.

The United States, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, saying it would harm the U.S. economy and is flawed by the lack of restrictions on emissions by emerging economic powers such as China and India.

In the first ever meeting of all 140 signatories of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Canada's Environment Minister Stephane Dion is juggling the presidency of the 11th U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Control while facing the imminent collapse of his country's government.

No-confidence vote

Opposition leaders have garnered enough votes in the House of Commons to topple Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government in a no-confidence vote Monday night, forcing him to dissolve Parliament and set a day for national elections in January. (Full story)

Though Dion would remain in office, he would also be called upon to begin campaigning for his Liberal Party and could be mightily distracted. Opening the conference, Dion vowed to stay the course and described climate change as "the greatest environment hazard" facing mankind.

"Tragic experiences in many countries over the last year have once again reminded us of the world's vulnerability to climate-related disasters and highlighted the urgent need for adaptation" to rising sea levels, glacial melting and warmer atmospheric temperatures, he said.

The Kyoto accord, negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto, targets carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases blamed for rising global temperatures that many scientists say are disrupting weather patterns.

The treaty, which went into effect in February, calls on the top 35 industrialized nations to cut emissions by 5.2 percent below their 1990 levels by 2012.

This conference will set agreements on how much more emissions should be cut after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, though signatories are falling short of their targets.

Canada is up there with Spain, Ireland, Greece and five other nations as having the biggest increases in gas emissions. According to the United Nations, Spain is the worst, with a nearly 42 percent increase in emissions between 1990 and 2003; Canada stands at 24 percent and the United States experienced an increase of 13 percent.

The Kyoto accord was delayed by the requirement that countries accounting for 55 percent of the world's emissions must ratify it. That goal was finally reached -- nearly seven years after the pact was negotiated -- with Russia's approval last year.

The targets vary by region: The European Union initially committed to cutting emissions to 8 percent below 1990 levels; the United States agreed to a 7 percent reduction before Bush denounced the pact in 2001, saying it would cost too much and exacerbate a bothersome energy problem for the world's largest consumer of fossil fuels.

Beyond the Kyoto deadline, the European Union appears to be taking the lead, endorsing a plan in June to bring emissions of greenhouses gases down 15 percent to 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

As signatories to Kyoto's parent treaty, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Washington is still an active participant at the conference, even if it says it prefers investments in climate science and technology rather than mandatory emissions caps.

Many had hoped Canada would persuade its neighbor to join the Kyoto fold, though Washington no longer has that option.

"I will certainly welcome any idea that may bring the United States closer to Canada, Europe, Japan, England and other countries as partners in this convention," Dion said. "We cannot do without the Americans because they represent 25 percent of emissions, and an even greater percentage of the solution."

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Image
User avatar
Caz
Master
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 1:52 am
19
Contact:

#2

Post by Caz »

Some helpful links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming - Global warming Wikipedia entry.

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html - The full Kyoto Protocol.
Image
User avatar
Comrade Tortoise
Exemplar
Posts: 4832
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:33 am
19
Location: Land of steers and queers indeed
Contact:

#3

Post by Comrade Tortoise »

On my part, yes global warming is happening,yes it is human caused, no, Kyoto will not do shit

discuss
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

There is no word harsh enough for this. No verbal edge sharp and cold enough to set forth the flaying needed. English is to young and the elder languages of the earth beyond me. ~Frigid

The Holocaust was an Amazing Logistical Achievement~Havoc
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#4

Post by frigidmagi »

My two cents.

Kyoto doesn't work for me for a simple reasons, most of the nations cutting back under the treaty (France, Germany, Canada) are already amoung the cleaniest in the planet emissions wise. While the the guys pumping out boatloads don't have to anything.

I'm not suggesting slamming the developing nations but some enviromental equipment could be slammed in relativity cheap and would make a dent in the overall planets emissions rate. I'm pretty sure if we were all serious about this rather than making half ass agreements that are dropped like a bad habit that something could be worked out, for example, let's say a loan for the purpose of being the 3rd world factories up to code. Meanwhile in the states... Look we simply got to let go of the SUVs, I know you feel big and powerful in them but well... It's wasteful and America, seriously, we look bad in them, we do, we really, really do.

Meanwhile in order to met the Kyoto treaty Germany and France might have to shut down nuclear power plants which makes no sense at all. Nuclear power creates less emissions, not more. And while this is happening China is opening more coal plants. Yeah this will agreement is helping the planet. Helping like L.A in rush hour.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
Comrade Tortoise
Exemplar
Posts: 4832
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:33 am
19
Location: Land of steers and queers indeed
Contact:

#5

Post by Comrade Tortoise »

My reasons are similar to magi's.

In my opinion, we need to end our american obsession with massive freud mobiles and stop the fearmongering with nuclear power. Unless we cut back by far more than Kyoto calls for, all we are doing is delaying the inevitable.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

There is no word harsh enough for this. No verbal edge sharp and cold enough to set forth the flaying needed. English is to young and the elder languages of the earth beyond me. ~Frigid

The Holocaust was an Amazing Logistical Achievement~Havoc
User avatar
Caz
Master
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 1:52 am
19
Contact:

#6

Post by Caz »

Kyoto is, if anything, a PR accord and nothing more.

If the U.S. cared about reducing the emissions in our air, SUVs are hardly a problem. The main causes of air pollution in our country (as far as so-called greenhouse gases go) aren't factories or power plants like most Americans picture. Though few realise it, the largest polluters in America aren't personal automobiles. They're autos associated with shipping and freight, from 18-wheelers to barges. Which is why the U.S. won't ever do anything about it. Yes, you can raise the standards for emissions on semi trucks, but even modern, 'clean' semi trucks don't hold a candle to the amount of pollutants reduced by using rail systems.

However, switching from trucking to rails would: reduce jobs, decrease the availability of certain goods, and require federal millions to rebuild/update/recertify our current railroad system and get it up to modern safety standards.

And any federal official that proposed or supported such a measure would be steamrolled with opposition, because nobody wants to put delivery drivers out of a job and nobody wants their milk to get to them a few days slower than usual.
Image
User avatar
Josh
Resident of the Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery
Posts: 8114
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:51 pm
19
Location: Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery

#7

Post by Josh »

Ooooooooooooooooh Caz-ter, you just had to draw me in.

Demolishing the modern trucking industry would be far more than an inconvenience, it would be a disaster.

There's a reason ninety percent of the freight in this country moves by truck. Rail is a horrendously inefficienty delivery system good only for bulk product. You want to move coal? Rail. Move bulk oil? Rail.

You want to have this sort of dispersed population base and industrial base that is the driving force behind the greatest economy in history? Truck. Those outside the logistics industry have no comprehension of just how much modern industry is built around truckload logistics. One example is warehousing. You take your average Wal Mart distribution center, or any other major firm. Easily as many goods are stored outside the center in truck trailers as are stored inside the facilities.

It's not a matter of putting drivers out of a job- the trucking lobbies are incredibly weak on a D.C. scale, and if push came to shove they could be steamrolled. But on the other hand, you start talking about the sort of economic damage that gutting the dispersed infrastructure that has been made possible by truck delivery, that gets attention.
When the Frog God smiles, arm yourself.
"'Flammable' and 'inflammable' have the same meaning! This language is insane!"
GIVE ME COFFEE AND I WILL ALLOW YOU TO LIVE!- Frigid
"Ork 'as no automatic code o' survival. 'is partic'lar distinction from all udda livin' gits is tha necessity ta act inna face o' alternatives by means o' dakka."
I created the sound of madness, wrote the book on pain
User avatar
Comrade Tortoise
Exemplar
Posts: 4832
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:33 am
19
Location: Land of steers and queers indeed
Contact:

#8

Post by Comrade Tortoise »

Cutting back on emissions can only be accomplished in so many ways.

1) We need to switch over completely from all oil and coal based power sources We will have to eventually, may as well get it done sooner rather than later. Switch to a combination of nuclear power(with recycled uranium) and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro
2) Tax the living shit out of gasoline using vehicles other than aircraft and give income tax breaks to electric and alternative fuel ehyicles, and eventually, to hydrogen fuel cells. The trucking industry can be adapted to use alternative fuels or hydrogen I am fairly certain.
3)Industrial processes need to be forced, tiehr by taxation or by tax breaks and subsidization to clean up their emissions.

I know, it sounds down right liberal, and it has to be. You cant get people to cut back on their trace gas emissions any other way. They just wont do it. So you either need to punish them for not switching, or reward them massively for switching. Possibly even use both.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

There is no word harsh enough for this. No verbal edge sharp and cold enough to set forth the flaying needed. English is to young and the elder languages of the earth beyond me. ~Frigid

The Holocaust was an Amazing Logistical Achievement~Havoc
User avatar
Mayabird
Leader of the Marching Band
Posts: 1635
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:53 pm
19
Location: IA > GA
Contact:

#9

Post by Mayabird »

To prevent myself from just saying the exact same things as everyone else... what are other people's thoughts on hydro-solar projects such as using the Qattara Depression in Egypt to produce electricity? The idea is that seawater continuously flowing into the depression and evaporating would run turbines for electricity.

Or we could just flood the whole thing and make a nice inland sea in the Sahara. There's also been at least one analysis of the climate changes that would result from the extra moisture, except it's old and I can't get it online:

Segal, M., R.A. Pielke and Y. Mahrer, 1983: On climatic changes due to a flooding of the Qattara Depression (Egypt). Climatic Change, 5, 73-83.
I :luv: DPDarkPrimus!

Storytime update 8/31: Frigidmagi might be amused by this one.
User avatar
Josh
Resident of the Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery
Posts: 8114
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:51 pm
19
Location: Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery

#10

Post by Josh »

Comrade Tortoise wrote:The trucking industry can be adapted to use alternative fuels or hydrogen I am fairly certain.
Not with present technology. We had a lengthy chat on this over at SDN once, and there currently aren't any designs for the production of engines that would be durable and powerful enough. The industry is already having hell with the Mad Fuehrer Carol Browner's royal fucking over on the emission standards jackup from the late nineties that resulted in all the domestic producers being forced to throw untested technology on the market.
When the Frog God smiles, arm yourself.
"'Flammable' and 'inflammable' have the same meaning! This language is insane!"
GIVE ME COFFEE AND I WILL ALLOW YOU TO LIVE!- Frigid
"Ork 'as no automatic code o' survival. 'is partic'lar distinction from all udda livin' gits is tha necessity ta act inna face o' alternatives by means o' dakka."
I created the sound of madness, wrote the book on pain
User avatar
Comrade Tortoise
Exemplar
Posts: 4832
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:33 am
19
Location: Land of steers and queers indeed
Contact:

#11

Post by Comrade Tortoise »

Petrosjko wrote:
Comrade Tortoise wrote:The trucking industry can be adapted to use alternative fuels or hydrogen I am fairly certain.
Not with present technology. We had a lengthy chat on this over at SDN once, and there currently aren't any designs for the production of engines that would be durable and powerful enough. The industry is already having hell with the Mad Fuehrer Carol Browner's royal fucking over on the emission standards jackup from the late nineties that resulted in all the domestic producers being forced to throw untested technology on the market.
Not saying it would be easy :wink:
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

There is no word harsh enough for this. No verbal edge sharp and cold enough to set forth the flaying needed. English is to young and the elder languages of the earth beyond me. ~Frigid

The Holocaust was an Amazing Logistical Achievement~Havoc
User avatar
The Silence and I
Disciple
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:09 pm
19
Contact:

#12

Post by The Silence and I »

Lemme get this straight... they can't fit somewhere in that giant hood a large fuel cell (these will be truck adaptable just as soon as they can work for cars AFAICT) and huge industrial grade electric engines? It's a truck... you don't need the parts to look cool, make it big, make it bulky, make it bloody well work. Sigh, we need more Russian engineers...
User avatar
Josh
Resident of the Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery
Posts: 8114
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:51 pm
19
Location: Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery

#13

Post by Josh »

It's not the space requirement that's at issue.

It's the ability to create an engine that can give a vehicle five hundred to a thousand miles of range on a single fueling, capable of hauling 80,000 pounds of freight up high-angle grades, with a relatively low maintenance cycle (the robustness of a diesel engine), be field-maintainable, etc.

The standard truck engine design has been refined for decades until it has essentially been optimized. Replacing it won't happen overnight.
When the Frog God smiles, arm yourself.
"'Flammable' and 'inflammable' have the same meaning! This language is insane!"
GIVE ME COFFEE AND I WILL ALLOW YOU TO LIVE!- Frigid
"Ork 'as no automatic code o' survival. 'is partic'lar distinction from all udda livin' gits is tha necessity ta act inna face o' alternatives by means o' dakka."
I created the sound of madness, wrote the book on pain
User avatar
Caz
Master
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 1:52 am
19
Contact:

#14

Post by Caz »

Petrosjko wrote:It's not the space requirement that's at issue.

It's the ability to create an engine that can give a vehicle five hundred to a thousand miles of range on a single fueling, capable of hauling 80,000 pounds of freight up high-angle grades, with a relatively low maintenance cycle (the robustness of a diesel engine), be field-maintainable, etc.

The standard truck engine design has been refined for decades until it has essentially been optimized. Replacing it won't happen overnight.
There's also the issue of cost. While a fleet of diesels is by no means a cheap thing to maintain, compared to other, more eco-friendly means of powering a vehicle (such as Coca-Cola's natural gas project) the cost of diesel is minimal.
Image
Post Reply