[Buck Wolter]

From President Obama's tough new budget today:


For the Department of Energy (DOE), the president requested a 12 percent increase over the current level to $29.5 billion. The budget promises to incur savings, however, through “cuts to inefficient fossil energy programs.” The proposal comes just three days after DOE Secretary Steven Chu outlined how the agency would cut wasteful spending.

The Office of Science is slated to receive $5.4 billion increase in funding in the president’s proposal, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy a is slated to get total of $550 million.

The president wants to double the number of Energy Innovation Hubs throughout the country from three to six as a challenge to “America’s scientists and engineers to assemble teams of the best minds in their fields to focus on the hardest problems in clean energy.”

The proposal calls the hubs the “Apollo projects of our time.”

Obama also reiterated the goal he laid out in his State of the Union address last month of one million electric cars on the road by 2015. To do so, the administration proposes transforming an existing $7,500 tax credit into a rebate for consumers who buy electric vehicles, spending $588 million on vehicle technology at the Department of Energy (DOE), and rewarding communities that pursue electric vehicle infrastructure with a $200 million incentive program.

The president also lays out how the government could fund his proposed Clean Energy Standard (CES) – a goal that would double the amount of electricity used from clean energy sources by 2035. The budget includes up to $36 billion in future loans for nuclear power plants and $200 million in credit for $1 to $2 billion dollars in loan guarantees for innovation in energy efficiency.

Moreover, in an effort to fund reducing emissions from commercial buildings, the budget proposes a “Race to Green” program, similar to the Department of Education’s “Race to the Top” that makes states compete for funding. The program aims to reduce energy usage by 20 percent by 2020.

To help pay for it all, the budget proposes rolling back tax breaks and subsidies to the oil industry, totaling $46.2 billion.





Energy innovation hubs? I just threw up a little in my mouth. If all the oil companies combined their resources they don't have enough money to grease the scientist's wheels to keep up with this level of boondoggle -- they still have shareholders after all.

Race to Green? Do any of you think this money will be spent on anything productive?

The office of science gets $5.4 Billion -- I wonder how much of that will be going to actually study if we have an issue? My guess is $0. If I had a kid in college I'd tell him to become a grant writer.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Steve,
Do you think a couple of those towers cost more/less than a state of the art irrigation system? Plus, couldn't they be a design element...aim for the ion generator...don't aim for the tower the archie is screwing with you...

[Steve Lang]

;<)) Don,  Given no unsightly wires to foster alignment.. you might get a real spin charge out of challenging the ion flow-winds

[Anthony Butler]

Reading through your various levels of dissembling on this issue has been a chore. The idea that the accumulated opinion of every reputable scientists or scientific institution in the world having to 'prove' something to your pea-sized brain is laughable...

The fact of the matter is the activities you mention will become cost prohibitive and unavailable to all simply because we are using the hydro-carbon resources on earth quicker than nature replaces them. I;m sure the concept of supply and demand has not escaped you.

The point of making them somewhat cost prohibitive now is that we create an incentive and financial means to create non-CO2 producing avenues for continuing these activities before everyone turns into an extra from Mad Max over a tank of gas.

The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him...

Is there any need to resort to personal abuse? Just because I have a different opinion, why does that mean I have a "pea brain"? It's precisely this sort of attitude which alienates the majority of people.

All I'm asking for is empirical proof, not a hypothesis or a theory. I'd say that was the minimum we needed before undertaking such a huge financial spree. It would, of course, help if the role of clouds was fully understood. The same clouds which make up by far the largest part of the greenhouse effect. If we can't understand the role of them, what chance have we got?

As for Mr Gore, he's done very well for himself. Especially with carbon trading companies. I'll take him - and others of his ilk - a lot more seriously when they stop flying around by private jet and buying multi million dollar seaside mansions. He can't be that worried about sea rise can he? One of my favourite Al Gore quotes is this one:

"but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, because the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees"

Yep. Real smart cookie is Al.

I can't tell if you're retarded or you just play one on the internet. The fact that Al Gore has made money from the business of climate change has zero affect on the scientific principles that have created it. For some reason a lot of people posting here seem to think that mentioning Al Gore has become wealthy since 2000 somehow proves global warming must be a figment of his imagination.

The simple fact is the more activity and success you have the bigger your carbon footprint will be simply because the infrastructure to go carbon-neutral and not simply buy carbon credits (by which Gore completely offsets his CO2 emissions) doesn't exist. My carbon footprint will almost double this year just because I have a client in Chicago, and another in LA.

Last time I was out in California, I spent 15 minutes helping a woman driving a Nissan Leaf locate a power point outside a health club in Santa Barbara so she had enough juice to get back to Santa Monica. This after she had charged the car for 6 hours at her hotel the previous night. You won't convince people to change their behaviors and buying patterns when the zero CO2 alternative is a huge hassle. That's the Inconvenient Truth.

Hence the DOE infrastructure funding for 220 volt charging stations etc. that another Einstein on this thread thinks worthy of mocking. The Obama Administration is simply acknowledging electrical vehicle purchases won't grow until there's an infrastructure in place to facilitate the mobility people expect from their cars. That seems like the opposite of naive to me. And despite what everyone says, the most economic opportunity is in the Industries that attract the most government support. i.e. Energy, Healthcare, the Internet. Even the car Industry itself... as I recall about 2 years ago the entire US car industry heading towards bankruptcy. After the Obama administration invested about $50b, GM is worth about twice that and a million people still have a job. On top of that, demand for domestic vehicles is so great, we're importing cars from Detroit.

You have to think of buying an electric car as the equivalent of buying a computer 20 years ago. If we didn't continue to do that despite their obvious shortcomings, we wouldn't have the MacBook Air today. The carbon fuel and automotive industry were simply too heavily funded by our government to change, that's why the initial efforts to break out of this paradigm will probably leave a lot to be desired... we should have been suffering through the development pains of creating legitimate alternate fuel and power alternatives immediately after the first Oil Crisis. That would have at least spared us the enormous cost of bringing 'freedoms' to our friends in the Middle East.

[John Kirk]

Steve,

I didn't take the time to read your post careful enough to know your political leanings, but that's the same data I've seen for proven oil reserves.

At today's approximate usage rate of 80 million barrels per day, the world uses 29.2 billion barrels of oil per year.  I think if you added those reserves up, you'd find that there's about 40 years of proven reserves left.

To all,

There's significant discussion about "taking the market" out of the oil business.  Since oil is an inexpensive but precious commodity, I don't believe "the market" properly allocates this resource with a long term outlook.  Too much short term greed.  There are some things in business that don't lend themselves well to market forces.  When oil is gone, it's gone.

And Tom Birkert, I believe there has been compelling evidence to support the theory.  Thanks.

Peace and love to everyone.  Unless you're on the other side, then well...

[Chris DeNigris]

John K- in an earlier post you cited the 97% concensus figure (scientiists supporting AGW) as being overwhelmingly conclusive and statistically incontrovertable. Funny thing about those statistics...that oft quoted poll seems to have been derived from a whopping 77 climate scientists (most of whom received research funding to reach those conclusions)...But don't take my word for it:

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-consensus-about-anthropogenic-global.html

For Matt, Craig S, Richard,  David C and David E- Here's another 1000 world scientists that have recently (as of Dec 2010) come out strongly against AGW and especially against the IPCC in light of the Climategate disaster. Many of these "deniers"  were formerly recent "believers" and IPCC scientists themselves. Some really good quotes from several of them.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

[David_Elvins]

David E- Here's another 1000 world scientists that have recently....

I have no dog in this fight, Chris, I am open minded on Golbal warming, and very skeptical as to whether the governments are coming up with anything like an economically efficient solution. 

[Duncan Betts]

Thanks Tom,  But what is it that actually costs money? 

And why is a monetary cost important?  Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont? 

What is the actual cost of reducing CO2?  How would we be worse off?  How would people in developing countries be worse off? 

sorry to go backwards, but is this a legitimate question?

[David_Elvins]

Thanks Tom,  But what is it that actually costs money? 

And why is a monetary cost important?  Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont? 

What is the actual cost of reducing CO2?  How would we be worse off?  How would people in developing countries be worse off? 

sorry to go backwards, but is this a legitimate question?

yes, looking for a good answer.

[Anthony Butler]

Reading through your various levels of dissembling on this issue has been a chore. The idea that the accumulated opinion of every reputable scientists or scientific institution in the world having to 'prove' something to your pea-sized brain is laughable...

The fact of the matter is the activities you mention will become cost prohibitive and unavailable to all simply because we are using the hydro-carbon resources on earth quicker than nature replaces them. I;m sure the concept of supply and demand has not escaped you.

The point of making them somewhat cost prohibitive now is that we create an incentive and financial means to create non-CO2 producing avenues for continuing these activities before everyone turns into an extra from Mad Max over a tank of gas.

The notion that this will lead to a transfer of wealth is complete and utter bullshit. The people with capital and intelligence will profit from this turn of events just like they always do. And for the record, Al Gore did not get wealthy over stoking fears that climate change will kill us all. He made about $50m out of his Google options alone. As it turns out, 2000 was very good time to not become President of the US, at least for him...

Is there any need to resort to personal abuse? Just because I have a different opinion, why does that mean I have a "pea brain"? It's precisely this sort of attitude which alienates the majority of people.

All I'm asking for is empirical proof, not a hypothesis or a theory. I'd say that was the minimum we needed before undertaking such a huge financial spree. It would, of course, help if the role of clouds was fully understood. The same clouds which make up by far the largest part of the greenhouse effect. If we can't understand the role of them, what chance have we got?

As for Mr Gore, he's done very well for himself. Especially with carbon trading companies. I'll take him - and others of his ilk - a lot more seriously when they stop flying around by private jet and buying multi million dollar seaside mansions. He can't be that worried about sea rise can he? One of my favourite Al Gore quotes is this one:

"but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, because the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees"

Yep. Real smart cookie is Al.

I can't tell if you're retarded or you just play one on the internet. The fact that Al Gore has made money from the business of climate change has zero affect on the scientific principles that have created it. For some reason a lot of people posting here seem to think that mentioning Al Gore has become quite wealthy since 2000 somehow proves global warming must be a figment of his imagination.

The simple fact is the more activity and success you have the higher your carbon footprint will rise simply because the infrastructure to go carbon-neutral and not simply buy carbon credits (by which Gore completely offsets his CO2 emissions) doesn't exist. My carbon footprint will almost double this year just because I have a client in Chicago, and another in LA.

Last time I was out in California, I spent 15 minutes helping a woman driving a Nissan Leaf locate a power point outside a health club in Santa Barbara so she had enough juice to get back to Santa Monica. This after she had charged the car for 6 hours at her hotel the previous night. You won't convince people to change their behaviors and buying patterns when the low CO2 alternative is a huge hassle. That's the Inconvenient Truth.

Hence the DOE infrastructure funding for 220 volt charging stations etc. that another Einstein on this thread thinks worthy of mocking. The Obama Administration is simply acknowledging electrical vehicle purchases won't grow until there's an infrastructure in place to facilitate the mobility people expect from the cars. That seems like the opposite of naive to me. And despite what everyone says, the most economic opportunity is in the Industries that attract the most government support. i.e. Energy, Healthcare, the Internet.

You have to think of buying an electric car as the equivalent of buying a computer 20 years ago. If we didn't continue to do that despite their obvious shortcomings, we wouldn't have the MacBook Air today. The carbon fuel and automotive industry were simply too heavily funded by our government to change, that's why the initial efforts to break out of this paradigm are going to leave a lot to be desired... we should have been suffering through the development pains of creating legitimate alternate fuel and power alternatives immediately after the first Oil Crisis. That would have at least spared us the enormous cost of bringing 'freedoms' to our friends in the Middle East.

[John Kirk]

John K- in an earlier post you cited the 97% concensus figure (scientiists supporting AGW) as being overwhelmingly conclusive and statistically incontrovertable. Funny thing about those statistics...that oft quoted poll seems to have been derived from a whopping 77 climate scientists (most of whom received research funding to reach those conclusions)...But don't take my word for it:

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-consensus-about-anthropogenic-global.html

OK, Chris, I looked at your blog post, and then I looked at the actual paper that reported the findings.  Nowhere in the findings does it suggest that only 77 climate scientists were polled.  The actual number is 1,372.

PNAS-2010-Anderegg-1003187107.pdf

I'll choose this scientific paper over the blog as my source of information.

[Craig Sweet]

To the deniers....what do you suppose happens when CO2 is released into the atmosphere?  Does it simply go away with no effect?  Surely the science and the knowledge is there to "prove" that CO2 will react with the atmosphere in a particulair  way...right?

So if there is a reaction....and I think we are ALL in agreement that there is....but lets set aside man made CO2 releases...what do you deniers make of the increase in NATURALLY OCCURING releases of CO2?   In other words, as the climate NATURALLY WARMS, and the tundra thaws and releases CO2...and the oceans release more CO2 than they can absorb, will this have a "snowball" effect on climate change?

We have had ice ages and serious climate warm ups....we know how they occured. CO2 has been involved with every warm up.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Who said this...

"But the xxxxxx also criticised environmentalists for concentrating "on what people need to stop doing".

"If we are constantly told that living environmentally friendly lives means giving up all that makes life worthwhile, then it is no surprise that people refuse to change.""

[Tom Birkert]

To the deniers....what do you suppose happens when CO2 is released into the atmosphere?  Does it simply go away with no effect?  Surely the science and the knowledge is there to "prove" that CO2 will react with the atmosphere in a particulair  way...right?

So if there is a reaction....and I think we are ALL in agreement that there is....but lets set aside man made CO2 releases...what do you deniers make of the increase in NATURALLY OCCURING releases of CO2?   In other words, as the climate NATURALLY WARMS, and the tundra thaws and releases CO2...and the oceans release more CO2 than they can absorb, will this have a "snowball" effect on climate change?

We have had ice ages and serious climate warm ups....we know how they occured. CO2 has been involved with every warm up.

Again, enough of the "deniers" rubbish. It had clear, deliberate connotations with the Holocaust and I find it personally very offensive. I'm not denying climate change; change is, after all, the only constant. I find the notion that we think we can control and stabilise the temperature of the planet the very height of Mankind's arrogance.

If we are talking about a totally enclosed system, whereby every other factor was fully understood and stayed the same, then rising CO2 would cause a small amount of warming. Of course, the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, so the more that is added, the less the effect. However, it's not that simple in the real world. The other factors aren't all known. The other factors aren't all understood. It's a chaotic system, with so many variables, that it's utterly impossible to single out one factor and say it's responsible, especially given the poor data and the incredibly short period of time we're talking about. We're guessing. We've taken the one factor that we can monitor, and convinced ourselves that correlation equates to causation. Well it doesn't. Empirical proof is required, and there is absolutely none.

As for CO2 being involved in every warm up, it's generally accepted that an increase in temperature leads to more CO2 being released by the oceans (which hold the vast majority of CO2). The increase in CO2 lags temperature increases by approximately 600-800 years. So it's a delayed signal of a warming episode, but not the causal effect.

At the time when CO2 was rising most dramatically - 1940s to 1970s - the temperature fell. The models have predicted even greater warming as CO2 increased, yet this hasn't happened. It's plateaued. Same with tropical storms. They've actually fallen in number dramatically.

The overwhelming majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources. Roughly 4% is Man's responsibility. Water vapour has by far the biggest greenhouse effect, around 95%. CO2 is next, again at around 4%. So Man is responsible for 4% of the 4%, or 0.016%. We could cease to exist and the climate would still change, just as it always has done, and always will do.

What really has changed is that we've started to look more into the matter, and we hate to feel powerless. It's always nice to have some big problem to worry about, especially one that can't actually be proven but can be used for any number of purposes.

Finally, a word of advice for those who do believe in man made global warming. Don't preach. Don't abuse others who don't share your view. Demand scientific honesty and integrity, and admit to the numerous unknowns. Admit just how little we know, and how uncertain a lot of it is. You're losing the battle for "hearts and minds" for all those reasons, and many others too.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Al Gore – “An Inconvenient Truth”:

     * Page 227: “Almost 30 % of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year is a result of the burning of brushland for subsistence agriculture and wood fires used for cooking.”

     * Page 230-231 shows a “six-month time lapse image of the world at night” from satellite imagery, in which “Africa stands out partly because of the prevalence of wood fires for cooking.” (Other burning areas can be seen in South America and Southeast Asia.)


The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in October 2006 that deforestation accounts for 25 to 30 percent of the release of greenhouse gases [http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000385/index.html]. The report states: “Most people assume that global warming is caused by burning oil and gas. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. … Delegates of the 46 developing countries present at the Rome workshop signalled their readiness to act on deforestation, 80 percent of which is due to increased farmland to feed growing populations. … But they also stressed that they needed financial help from the developed world to do the job.”


Greenpeace:

    * “Global emissions from tropical deforestation alone contribute up to 25% of total annual human-induced CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.” [http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/carving-up-the-congo-exec.pdf]

 
"People often do not take into account the main driver of deforestation, which is very different in Africa, where it is the need for fuel wood," said Kevin Conrad, director of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations at the Earth Institute of Columbia University. … Deforestation is responsible for 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon emissions every year, amounting to one-fifth of the global total, and to more than the combined total contributed by the world's energy-intensive transport sectors, according to the Indonesia-based Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). "Deforestation contributes almost as much to climate change as does US fossil fuel use," said Conrad. "Yet deforestation was specifically excluded from the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which failed to address this significant source of carbon emissions." [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=75868]

[Jeff Taylor]

Thanks Tom,  But what is it that actually costs money? 

And why is a monetary cost important?  Isn't that just a redistribution of money, from those that produce CO2 to those that dont? 

What is the actual cost of reducing CO2?  How would we be worse off?  How would people in developing countries be worse off? 

sorry to go backwards, but is this a legitimate question?

yes, looking for a good answer.

For the state of Georgia. Taken from a paper titled "Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effect of Greenhouse-gas Emission Limits in the State of Georgia" Of course costs cannot be counted until they are incurred. So all you will get are estimates.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS
And what would be the potential costs to Georgia of federal actions designed to cap greenhouse gas emissions?
A comprehensive analysis was recently completed by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) examining the economic impact of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill (HR 2454). The Waxman-Markey bill is typical of federal proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The NAM/ACCF commissioned the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to assess the impact of the Waxman-Markey bill on manufacturing, jobs, energy prices and the overall economy. The NAM/ACCF study accounts for all federal energy laws and regulations currently in effect. It accounts for increased access to oil and natural gas supplies, new and extended tax credits for renewable generation technologies, increased World Oil Price profile, as well as permit allocations for industry and international offsets. Additionally, the provisions of the stimulus package passed in February 2009 are included in the study.
The 2009 Waxman-Markey Bill proposed targets that would reduce GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020; 42% below 2005 levels by 2030; and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.
For a complete description of these findings please visit: http://www.accf.org/ publications/126/accf-nam-study.
In general, for the U.S., the NAM/ACCF found:
 Cumulative Loss in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) up to $3.1 trillion (2012-2030)
 Employment losses up to 2.4 million jobs in 2030
 Residential electricity price increases up to 50 percent by 2030
 Gasoline price increases (per gallon) up 26 percent by 2030.
The NAM/ACCF also analyzed the economic costs on a state by state basis. For Georgia, in particular, they found that by the year 2020, average annual household disposable income would decline by $87 to $199 and by the year 2030 the decline would increase to between $516 and $930. The state would stand to lose between 47,722 and 64,993 jobs by 2030. At the same time energy prices would rise substantially. Gasoline prices could increase by 26%, electricity prices by 53% and natural gas by up to 64%. Georgia’s Gross State Product could decline by 2030 by as much as $15.6 billion/yr.

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Bikert,

You are a much better man than I am, and I like to think that my skin has grown rather thick through my years of relevant experience.  Thank you for your well-written, common sense posts, and for not replying in kind.

It is hard for smart people to hold dear cultural, hard-wired life-views which don't match well with how the highly complicated, multivariate world works.  As the tone of the "Believers" often betrays, cognitive dissonance can be quite unsettling.

The problem with your closing is that it is impossible.  Psychologically, people aren't built to require the same of themselves as they do of others- my "facts", your "beleifs"; industry scientists are charlatans motivated by the greed of their paymasters and their research is to be summarily dismissed while government and "non-profit" scientists are trustworthy, altruistic, and pure as wind driven snow.  Somehow the latter are not governed by the same basic needs as the rest of us, something that my "pea sized brain" just can't quite grasp.

In the meantime, as David Elvins and others seem to suggest, it is not about costs or wealth anyways, so we might as well go full out on that 0.016% of the problem.  Do you think that Los Angeles, London, Madrid, Paris, etc. are immune from what just happened in Cairo?  Do we care to test that theory, peer-review it, and make it into a "scientific" fact?    

[David_Elvins]

In the meantime, as David Elvins and others seem to suggest....  

Please don't paint me as having an agenda here, Lou.  I know very little about the subject and have an open mind.  I am only asking the questions. 

Personally I thought that Tom Birkett's response, whilst interesting, was hysterical.  If you found it well reasoned, then fair enough. 


Jeff Taylor,
Thanks for the info.

[Jeff Taylor]

Jeff Taylor,
Thanks for the info.

My pleasure David. Upon reading the text myself, I could not help but think of the irony of a 20 to 30 year economic forecast about global warming legislation. They are starting from a fixed standard though (Waxman- Markey).

[Duncan Betts]

yes, looking for a good answer.

Have you purchased an airline ticket recently, and been asked to pay extra to 'fly carbon neutral' ?

Imagine if you needed to do everything 'carbon neutral' ?  How much extra would it cost you each day, especially if this 'neutrality' were imposed on you, rather than optional?

The cost of action is directly linked to the amount of action taken.  Take very little action, see very little cost.  Take extreme action, pay and extreme cost.  eg. Carbon offsetting is little action, little cost.  Cancelling the burning of fossil fuels altogether, extreme action - extreme cost.

By the way, when you make the choice whether to fly carbon neutral or not, you are effectively picking your dog in this fight, whether you like it or not.

[David_Elvins]

Have you purchased an airline ticket recently, and been asked to pay extra to 'fly carbon neutral' ?

Yeah, the carbon offset thingy is normally $1-2 a ticket.  That is why I am not understanding how taking action against global warming is too costly.  I can absorb an extra cost of 0.5-1%.  I really don't understand Tom's claiims that I will never be able to fly again. 

Imagine if you needed to do everything 'carbon neutral' ?  How much extra would it cost you each day, especially if this 'neutrality' were imposed on you, rather than optional?

I don't know and I don't like imagining, that is why I am asking.  If it is like the plane ticket and in the range of 0.5-1%, I can probably handle it. 

The cost of action is directly linked to the amount of action taken.  Take very little action, see very little cost.  Take extreme action, pay and extreme cost.  eg. Carbon offsetting is little action, little cost.  Cancelling the burning of fossil fuels altogether, extreme action - extreme cost.

I just find it hard to belive that man is not ingeneous enough to come up with alternative low cost energy.  People like Lou Duran are always talking about encouraging innovation, man's ability to adapt, etc etc, yet here we have so many of the same people crying out that the status quo should be maintained at all costs.  I am just not sure what I am missing? 

By the way, when you make the choice whether to fly carbon neutral or not, you are effectively picking your dog in this fight, whether you like it or not.

that is why I fly carbon neutral on every second flight, only. 

[Duncan Betts]

I just find it hard to belive that man is not ingeneous enough to come up with alternative low cost energy.  People like Lou Duran are always talking about encouraging innovation, man's ability to adapt, etc etc, yet here we have so many of the same people crying out that the status quo should be maintained at all costs.  I am just not sure what I am missing? 

they have, it's called nuclear energy.  It upsets a whole other group of people with a different agenda....

There is plenty of encouragement for innovation, don't let the latest Wall St movie lead you to believe otherwise.  Who is crying out for the status quo to be maintained at all costs?  If it aint broke, don't fix it.  If someone can produce irrefutable evidence that it is broken, then something may need fixing....

that is why I fly carbon neutral on every second flight, only.

Excellent answer, made me chortle a little.  However, taking the option just once - gives you a dog.  He's just a Jack Russel though, and you never walk him or feed him.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Duncan,

France seems to have implemented a safe and sound Nuclear Power System quite well.

I don't see why other nations couldn't replicate or improve the model.

[Craig Sweet]

What is France doing with their spent nuclear material?

[Steve Lang]

To the deniers....what do you suppose happens when CO2 is released into the atmosphere?  Does it simply go away with no effect?  Surely the science and the knowledge is there to "prove" that CO2 will react with the atmosphere in a particulair  way...right?

So if there is a reaction....and I think we are ALL in agreement that there is....but lets set aside man made CO2 releases...what do you deniers make of the increase in NATURALLY OCCURING releases of CO2?   In other words, as the climate NATURALLY WARMS, and the tundra thaws and releases CO2...and the oceans release more CO2 than they can absorb, will this have a "snowball" effect on climate change?

We have had ice ages and serious climate warm ups....we know how they occured. CO2 has been involved with every warm up.

WHOOOOAAAA ! TIME OUT

CO2 is essentailly an inert molecule in the atmosphere, and gets scrubbed out by dissolving in water drops/aerosols and then it converts into bicarbonate and carbonate species depending on pH. (it can react with ammonia in the atmosphere when its present, but that's a trace thing)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()