Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on December 11, 2005, 05:16:43 AM
-
Well, the UN conference on climate change, staged at Montreal has come and gone, and as expected the USA remains isolated in its position of refusing to negotiate on measures to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, it’s always going to be difficult for any administration to take “unpopular” measures to reduce greenhouse gas output in a country so heavily dependent on oil. Not least of the problems is that as with other democracies with a life cycle of between 4-7 years, the benefits of measures taken now won’t be apparent until after the current administration has ended its term of office.
This topic is being discussed on another board that I visit, and the folks there seem to be split into three camps – those who acknowledge the existence of global warming and are concerned, those who acknowledge it but don’t think there’s a problem, and those who think the whole issue is stuff and nonsense!
I take the view that like myself, most other people here don’t have a fully scientific understanding of the issues, beyond what we read in the papers. Personally, I prefer to give credence to the world’s scientists. When we have a scientific body that can, for example, predict the precise date, time and location of a solar eclipse YEARS in advance of the event, that tells me that they know what they’re talking about. By the same token, if an equally qualified group of scientists tell us that there really is a problem with regard to climate change and global warming, then I’m inclined to listen.
In his book, ”Billions and Billions”, the late American scientist and cosmologist Dr. Carl Sagan describes the difficulties he encountered in trying to convey his concerns about global warming to US politicians. One of them, having been apprised of the dangers of UV radiation resulting from a depletion of our protective ozone layer, retorted quite flippantly by saying that ”it won’t be a problem – we can just wear sunglasses”. As Dr. Sagan went on to point out, this would not be an option for life forms lower down the food chain. Indeed, the only politician on the world stage at that time that Dr. Sagan named as having a working scientific understanding of the problem and the reality of its dangers was British PM Margaret Thatcher, herself an Oxford graduate with a degree in Chemistry.
And in the 1980s, when US Chrysler Corp. CEO, Lee Iacocca urged Ronald Reagan to curb America’s energy consumption by introducing a small rise in tax on gasoline, Reagan replied to Iacocca in one of those “listen, son” tones, saying that right now that would “not be popular”. Iacocca was absolutely appalled that one of the key factors in policy making was “popularity”. Reagan was his friend, but Iacocca really panned him as a president.
I can well understand the sense of exasperation felt by Sagan and Iacocca. On this very board, I have encountered people who “see no reason” to curb the burning of fossil fuels, or who even believe that the most expeditious consumption of the world’s remaining oil stocks “would be a good thing”. But this is not surprising, coming from a country which produces vehicles which in some circumstances burn fuel at the rate a gallon for every 12 miles driven, but are considered by some to be “pretty economical”.
It seems that the Bush administration wants no part in greening up by reducing CO2 emissions, as this would involve a reduction in oil consumption, preferring instead to trust to some technological miracle which currently does not exist. The Kyoto agreement was rejected as an “economic straitjacket” in 2001. The US chief negotiator, Harlan Watson even stormed out of one meeting at last week’s conference in Montreal, so determined was he not to budge even an inch. Against this hardline stance, even Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, has emerged as one of the government’s leading energy policy critics.
What can be done, and where? The following is a list of leading industrialised countries, and their contribution to the world output of greenhouse gases.
- USA (25 % )
- China (15 % )
- Russia (7 % )
- Japan (5 % )
- India (4 % )
- Germany (4 % )
- UK (2 % )
- Canada (2 % )
- Italy (2 % )
If Britain were to halve its greenhouse gas emissions, it would make a difference of only 1% to the world total. But as can be seen from this list, the country with 5% of the world’s population emits 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas, so it should be obvious where the cuts would have to be made to make any impact on this GLOBAL problem.
As a higher rate taxpayer myself, I don’t like paying taxes, and I can’t think of anyone who does. It was interesting to see the effect that the post Katrina oil prices had on the motoring public. In another thread, it was revealed that although the increased annual cost of running a 12mpg gas guzzler was only ~$500 for a driver doing an average annual mileage of 12,000 miles, such vehicles were having to be discounted not by $1000 or $2000, but by a massive $15,000 in order to make them sell. My point is that a small levy could make a big difference to people’s motoring habits, and a big reduction in greenhouse gas output.
I do believe that everything will turn out right in the end. As Sir Winston Churchill once said, "America always makes the right decision..."
...and added "after having tried everything else".
-
// ugly ameri-con mode on
Statistics mean nothing !
// ugly americ-con mode off
Well especially when used by a non ameri-con !
Beetle I'm aware you know what con really mean !
I find the redundancy quite fiting in this case :D
-
once again, see to your own greenhouses ours don't leak. on another note beet1e do you personally own a greenhouse?
-
Its so easy to sign up to an accord like this. Europe, Japan and Canada all have. Now they get to set back and pound their chests and say how evil America is, and you greens can rest assured WE are good people. :noid
However, where are the results. Not one of the signatories has met their obligations and a number (France, England, Germany, Japan) have actually had increases in their banned emissions since they signed up. When the current signatories actually have the intestinal fortitude to wreck their economies and meet their obligations then, and only then will we see if they are serious about this accord. Then we will know if this is anything other than an effort by the commie pinko green anti-americans to destroy this bastion of democracy, this shining city on the hill, this arsenal of democracy, this beacon to the downtrodden, this lush lovely land we call America.
In the 60s and 70s there was concern about a global cooling. Scientists are not in agreement on global warming, whether it exists and whether if it is occuring whether man has any effect on it.
Talk is cheap, and so is this effort to blame America for things that occur whether humans are on the planet or not. The planet has cycles, they occur whether we are here or not. I dare say its alot colder now than when the dinos were stumbling around eating each other.
Quite frankly we are due for an iceage. I say throw a log on the fire and lets keep the place warm. :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It was interesting to see the effect that the post Katrina oil prices had on the motoring public. In another thread, it was revealed that although the increased annual cost of running a 12mpg gas guzzler was only ~$500 for a driver doing an average annual mileage of 12,000 miles, such vehicles were having to be discounted not by $1000 or $2000, but by a massive $15,000 in order to make them sell. My point is that a small levy could make a big difference to people’s motoring habits, and a big reduction in greenhouse gas output.
I do believe that everything will turn out right in the end. As Sir Winston Churchill once said, "America always makes the right decision..."
...and added "after having tried everything else".
Was there a new "Post Katrina Math" enacted?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
What can be done, and where? The following is a list of leading industrialised countries, and their contribution to the world output of greenhouse gases.
- USA (25 % )
- China (15 % )
- Russia (7 % )
- Japan (5 % )
- India (4 % )
- Germany (4 % )
- UK (2 % )
- Canada (2 % )
- Italy (2 % )
I do believe that everything will turn out right in the end. As Sir Winston Churchill once said, "America always makes the right decision..."
...and added "after having tried everything else". [/B]
This list is BS, go to Mexico sometime. When I was there for a month, you could smell Sulphur Emissions a 1/2 away from plants and factories. The US already does more than most nations in terms of placing filters on factories. Again, this list is total BS Beetle. This goes back to the British cop thread, what the hell is your lot in life? Are you really that angry, jealous, envious with AMERIKA that you must slam us weekly?
I remember reading about the "Gracious Churchill" and Roosevelt selling out Poland in WWII. Churchill was the leader of this move, and failed to invite any Poles from attending the 1946 Victory parade. Any details? The Poles saved your country from the Germans more than any Squadron in the RAF. The Poles had the most kills of ANY RAF squadron ( namely the 303 squadron ). Come on man, speak to me on these.
Karaya
-
hm didnt knew that Churchill is to blame for greenhouse gases, hm...
interesting.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
hm didnt knew that Churchill is to blame for greenhouse gases, hm...
interesting.
Never made the correlation with Churchill and greenhouse gases. Just giving folks an "often overlooked" side of Churchill.
Karaya
-
We choose to maintain the right of self-regulation. Besides, its all about methane from cows farts anyway.
-
Originally posted by Dago
We choose to maintain the right of self-regulation. Besides, its all about methane from cows farts anyway.
wait, now I'm all confused. I thought it was about "greenhouse gases"
-
Hmm... I am still waiting for the ice age in the year 2000 that all those grant wanting scientists predicted when I was a teen..
Aren't the only "scientists" that are predicting bad global warming the ones who want grants to "study" it?
as for a tax... I say no on tax.. if you give the government tax... for any reason.... it does nothing but grow the government... give them more power over you... fine if you are a brit or some other socialist but... not here.
if gas is in a shortage then the price will rise and the problem will solve itself as it should... free market. Average fuel economy in the U.S. is probly closer to 25 mpg than 12 tho. Even a new 525 hp Vette gets like 25 mpg.
Those who "want something done" really mean that they are about tired of getting screwed by their government while the U.S. leans on us a lot easier.. it is simply jealousy of the most petty and destructive type.
I would like to see the figures for amount of pollution per dollar of product produced.
lazs
-
We'll sign on when China does....
Junk Science (http://www.junkscience.com/)
-
need to save this thread for July ... its a freezin 59 here!
-
There is no reason to conserve fuel or try to limit it's use through taxes. Any fuel we save now will be burned later, having ZERO effect on the gross emmisions of gases and ZERO effect on the finite amount of fuel in this world.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
need to save this thread for July ... its a freezin 59 here!
Going down to 38 tonite here in Daytona....Was going to go out with the boat and do some Red Snapper fishing. Not now!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
need to save this thread for July ... its a freezin 59 here!
Amazing, how do you cope? long sleeved shirts, or do you have to put on a light jacket?
Been in the teens all week (before windchill).
-
Originally posted by beet1e
But as can be seen from this list, the country with 5% of the world’s population emits 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas, so it should be obvious where the cuts would have to be made to make any impact on this GLOBAL problem. [/i].
Not that it matters, but, 5 % percent of the worlds population accounts for 33 percent of the worlds GDP also.
Kyoyo is a flawed treaty that will never fix the problem it was designed to fix. It is a silly robin hood plan that has already cost countries much more than it was advertised.
The US has signed a climate deal, just not this Kyoto turkey.
BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4723305.stm)
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Not that it matters, but, 5 % percent of the worlds population accounts for 33 percent of the worlds GDP also.
Kyoyo is a flawed treaty that will never fix the problem it was designed to fix. It is a silly robin hood plan that has already cost countries much more than it was advertised.
The US has signed a climate deal, just not this Kyoto turkey.
BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4723305.stm)
Krusher makes an excellent point. Let's see each countries GDP up against their indevidual contribution to greenhouse gases. Then you'll see who the real culprits are. (starts with an M and rymes with "exico". Starts with a CH and rymes with "Ina")
-
Hmm... austrailia refuses to knuckle under to the socialists too? Good for them.. Next they will take back their guns?
As for carl frigging "doom and gloom" sagen..... Do we all recall the dire predictions he made during the first gulf war that if even half of the oil fields were set on fire for even a week... It would put the world into a nuclear winter.... what a pompous self serving buffoon the guy was.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hmm... austrailia refuses to knuckle under to the socialists too? Good for them.. Next they will take back their guns?
As for carl frigging "doom and gloom" sagen..... Do we all recall the dire predictions he made during the first gulf war that if even half of the oil fields were set on fire for even a week... It would put the world into a nuclear winter.... what a pompous self serving buffoon the guy was.
lazs
Carl was indeed an arse without a doubt, but you appear, by your comments, to be in the dark on exactly what the world is facing in the next 50-100 years as far as atmospheric/climate changes are concerned! I, for one, do not believe signing treaties will help at all but I am sure the world will face a major crisis. It doesn't take much to break the cycles of warming and cooling in the worlds waters and atmosphere. God help many when it does happen, and it will!
-
!@#!@#!@# B00sh1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DETH TO AMREEEEEEEEEEKAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111 111ONEONEONE
-
the world is facing in the next 50-100 years as far as atmospheric/climate changes are concerned! I, for one, do not believe signing treaties will help at all but I am sure the world will face a major crisis. It doesn't take much to break the cycles of warming and cooling in the worlds waters and atmosphere. God help many when it does happen, and it will!
You ever stop to think that maybe we aren't actually causing these weather shifts?
-
well skyrock... I guess you are the only person who knows what will happen.... unless of course a few volcanoes blow..
lazs
-
According to Beetle's list, the US and China are responsible for a large amount of greenhouse gases.
Is that because the other countries are more efficient, or is it because the other countries just have weak economies and produce very little, in comparison, for the world's markets?
I'd bet that the US is the most effecient of any country in greenhouse gases emmited per products and services rendered for the world.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
....ONEONEONE
Lol, thats why i read these threads.
I wish it were me that thought that up
-
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_09_12/cover.html
-
America is bad Moot. lol
Maybe if people worried about their own countries and tried to better themselves and their poeple, they wouldn't have to bash America so often.
Mayeb tax less and let the economies grow and learn from us.
-
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
This list is BS, go to Mexico sometime. When I was there for a month, you could smell Sulphur Emissions a 1/2 away from plants and factories. The US already does more than most nations in terms of placing filters on factories. Again, this list is total BS Beetle.
Several points: I did a search for "greenhouse gases", and found that gases containing sulphur barely get a mention. The gases that are considered to be the leading greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, tropospheric ozone, nitrous oxide, and methane. As for sulphur, you don't have to go to Mexico to smell that in the air. Take a trip to Yellowstone Pk in Wyoming some time. You can smell the sulphur in the air from the springs.
The list I provided is not BS. It is correct as far as it goes, but did not include Mexico because as a developing nation, Mexico is exempted from having to cut its greenhouse gas emissions. The big emitters are listed on a BBC science & technology web page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm The EU countries are lumped together into a single value on the chart that is in there, but the USA is still shown as by far the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases - more than all the EU countries put together, though I believe the chart might have been compiled before the latest 10 member states joined the EU in 2004.
-
I question the Russia and China stats.
I belive that although the US does have very high levels of greenhouse gas output it also the HIGHEST quality control and STRICTEST in controling them...requireing scrubbers etc to filter the toxins out...whereas Russia and China have no such restrictions. Given the boom of industry in China and in Russia I doubt that the US is higher than those countries.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Going down to 38 tonite here in Daytona....Was going to go out with the boat and do some Red Snapper fishing. Not now!
betcha the makarel is running near shore though.
-
typed and scrapped a super long post, but yeah, basically I agree.
-
ahhh... so it is a bs list cherry picked in order to make the U.S. look bad? The U.S. does have the strictest controls in the world allready and any further reductions would be minor and at a great expense. for instance... if you have a millionth of a part of hydrocarbons from car exhaust currently and reducing a million cars by half would have less effect than 4 guys mowing their lawn every week, and cost 2,000 per vehicle....
not hardly worth it.
We could probly cut the greenhouse gas the most by simply stopping all air travel except in emergencies and for produce. Or... all pleasure boating....
lazs
-
but did not include Mexico because as a developing nation, Mexico is exempted from having to cut its greenhouse gas emissions.
====
I believe giving exemptions on such a critial mass issue as global warming is not fair or equitable. Either everyone cuts their emissions or the whole deal is off.
The United States will not shoot our economy in the heart just so the developing nations can use all the excess energy left over from our self inflicted restrictions.
No way. After experiencing the political tone coming from europe and asia towards the United States these past dozen years I am in no mood to give the governments on those continents ANY advantage.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I belive that although the US does have very high levels of greenhouse gas output it also the HIGHEST quality control and STRICTEST in controling them...requireing scrubbers etc to filter the toxins out...whereas Russia and China have no such restrictions. Given the boom of industry in China and in Russia I doubt that the US is higher than those countries.
Certainly the US (especially California) was way ahead when measures were being applied to lower toxic emissions from car exhausts. I believe that 1975 was the first year that all gasoline powered cars in the US had to have a catalytic converter. Perhaps only Japan was ahead of the US in this development. In Britain it wasn't until c1988 that we started to see unleaded petrol, and it wasn't until 1991 that I got my first car with a CC - a Toyota.
The three way catalytic converter changes the composition of the car's exhaust gas from hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen into pure nitrogen, water vapour and carbon dioxide. But whereas these gases are less harmful to us, the water vapour and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases and are therefore responsible for global warming.
-
Looking for the source of your data the best I could find was:
It is difficult to obtain greenhouse gas emission estimates for many countries; however, energy data are widely available. The following table is derived from International Energy Agency, 1998; U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2000.
So, at best its a guess from a bunch of left wing tree hugging man hating whale humping lesbians with an agenda.
I've see thermographic imaging of the pollution in China, and its contribution to El Nino, and theres no way the USA produces more than the Chinese.
-
I think there are two big problems:
First: Everyone who is not in Europe or the US wants the lifestyle (and the massive ecological footprint it leaves) of those places - I'm not sure if the planet can support that sort of lifestlye for everyone on the planet. But we now have China and India q.v. the population statistic post on this board, who want to catch up and catch up fast. That means more pollution everywhere which is going to affect everyone.
Second: To my mind the most important contribution that oil makes to the world economy is in the manufacture of plastics - not petrol for cars. There are alternative energy sources to drive cars, and as far as I know apart from hemp which can can be used to make some limited forms of plastic like substances, we don't have any other material which can make the plastics to the tolerances we require in industry apart from oil.
What it boils down to is that people are going to have to change their lifestyles because if we follow the present industrial/economical course we are following as a planet the future is pretty dim unless we find some amazing techonolgical breakthrough very quickly.
Talking about emissions being reduced in the US makes no sense if the industry which is producing goods for the US economy is in China or India who are not eco-friendly in their production processes ... but cheaper. All it means is that production is going to move to those places.
Still, I don't have kids and I don't think there's going to be some sort of ecological meltdown in my lifetime. But for those of you who do, you might want to take your heads out of the sand.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
... water vapour and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases and are therefore responsible for global warming.
Hey, just what ya need to grow plants. What a happy coincidence!
-
Country Y: "bla bla bla until country X dont reduce theyr greenhouse gas emission why should we?"
Country X: "bla bla bla until country Y dont stop theyr greenhouse gas emission why should we?"
bla $ bla $ bla...
-
Damn!
Ghost, you just reduced my seven paragraphs into about 44 words.
Ravs
-
country x... we have the strictest emission controls in the world..
country y.... yeah...well... well... well.. yu should pay for everyone elses at least until your economy is as third world as everyone elses... How can you not love your fellow man enough to sink down into the mud with him?
lazs
-
That's about right Laz.
They want the US to pay and pay, so other crap countries can pollute and pollute. Overall, emmissions would not be less anyway.
-
What you don't understand (or you do and you are ignoring) Lasz is that those third world countries want to become first world countries by supplying first world countries with the goods first world countries want to buy. And the industries in the first world countries don't want to produce stuff in places with expensive strict emission controls (like the US). Those industries don't give a damn about where their stuff is produced, even if those companies claim they are as American as apple pie.
Head....sand...Lasz!
Ravs
-
ravels, so why would any country want to impose emission controls?
-
The US imposed emission controls on itself, before anyone else was even thinking of it as an issue.
The US imposed controls on itself out of concern for the environment, not our economy. Now little watermelon countries want to impose penalties on the US out of concern for their economies, not the environment.......otherwise they would not want to pollute, ala China.
-
I think the US should demand that all other countries at least equal the US standards for emission controls on all industry before we even consider taking this issue seriously.
-
I think this is a thinly veiled attempt to reign in the US stronghold in manufacturing. We already have some of the toughest pollution standards in the world and yet we produce 25% of the worlds greenhouse gases. What the rest of the world is saying is that they don't care that we produce 33% of the worlds goods and only produce 25% of the wolrds greenhouse gases. Their theory is that since we have 5% of the worlds population, we should produce 5% of the worlds pollution. How do we get to their goal? Move more and more US industry abroad. Like I said in an earlier post, if you want to know who the real heros and villians are, put each countries GNP up against their total pollution contribution. I would be willing to bet the US is one of the "greenest" countries in the world.
As Lazs said "How can you not love your fellow man enough to sink down into the mud with him?" This mindset is more widely believed than most Americans would care to know.
-
The reality of the situation is that cheap manufacturers like China and India should be TAXED on all exports against their emissions. In that way it would encourage them to clean up. Kyoto is the opposite, it taxes countries already making efforts to clean up (USA, Canada, UK, NZ, Aussie), then tries to give those taxes to the current pollutants producing cheap goods with high emmissions - not really encouraging them to clean up.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I question the Russia and China stats.
I belive that although the US does have very high levels of greenhouse gas output it also the HIGHEST quality control and STRICTEST in controling them...requireing scrubbers etc to filter the toxins out...whereas Russia and China have no such restrictions. Given the boom of industry in China and in Russia I doubt that the US is higher than those countries.
Bless a thinking man, WTFG Curval! Our Bermudan Brittanica :) How ya been?
Karaya
-
Originally posted by NUKE
ravels, so why would any country want to impose emission controls?
Because the world is a place of competing interests. And electorates are getting nervous about climate change but they still want their toys.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
The reality of the situation is that cheap manufacturers like China and India should be TAXED on all exports against their emissions.
erm, what main countrys produce massive (cheap) in China & India ?
their emissions? um think about it again.
-
sorry dude ya lost me.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You ever stop to think that maybe we aren't actually causing these weather shifts? [/QUOTE/]
I would say that you are in what some term, "the denial stage"! There are many species that over-whelmed their environment to point where it became harder for them to exist, the question is not whether we negatively affect our environment, but when it will catch up to us?
-
From 1988 to 1992 the North American continent's biomass absorbed more CO2 than industry produced.
At least during this period, we (the entire north american eco/industrial system) were responsible for reducing worldwide CO2. If it increased in this period, it wasn't due to us.
source (http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/98/q4/1016-carbon.htm)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ahhh... so it is a bs list cherry picked in order to make the U.S. look bad? The U.S. does have the strictest controls in the world allready and any further reductions would be minor and at a great expense. for instance... if you have a millionth of a part of hydrocarbons from car exhaust currently and reducing a million cars by half would have less effect than 4 guys mowing their lawn every week, and cost 2,000 per vehicle....
not hardly worth it.
We could probly cut the greenhouse gas the most by simply stopping all air travel except in emergencies and for produce. Or... all pleasure boating....
lazs
Lazs, I think you're confusing greenhouse gases (some of which are harmless to humans) with toxic vehicle emissions. It's true, and as I've said earlier, the US has long required catalytic converters on cars. But CCs convert hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen (which are poisonous to us) straight into greenhouse gases - water vapour and carbon dioxide! Out of the frying pan and into the fire! AFAIK, CO2 and H2O vapour cannot be "scrubbed clean" by means of filtration. Using current technology, vehicles are always going to emit greenhouse gases. Until W's technological miracle comes along, the only thing we can do for now is to reduce the amount of hydrocarbons being converted into greenhouse gases by vehicles and by other processes by cutting consumption - and using energy more efficiently. Given that the US emits 25% of the world's total greenhouse gas output, has about 40% of the world's vehicles and that 12mpg is seen as "acceptable", this would seem like a good place to start.
The UK contribution to greenhouse gas output is only 2%, so my boating trip on the Oxford canal next year can go ahead as planned! :p
-
We are furiously working on the control of cow farts to reduce methane. :rofl
-
rav... you have shifted the topic... I thought we were talking about beets cherry picked list which showed countries emmisions.... now you seem to be talking about how much a country buys from another country that pollutes..
soo... does your country not buy goods from third world countries? do you personaly not buy goods from third world countries?
I am not sure what everyone here wants... do you all want the U.S. to make it as expensive or more expensive for third world countries to produce goods (much higher standards) so that no one will buy em and they will remain third world or sink into the stone age when no one buys from them or.... Do you want the U.S. to simply support them so that they don't have to produce?
And all because.... there may be such a thing as global warming and it may have something to do with humans? and... some scientists think that they have a pretty good theory on what things humans do that may be causing it? Even tho... One good volcanoe erruption produces more greenhouse effect than ten years of human "pollution"?
Beet... you were the one talking about cars and 12 mpg and such... your boat trip is the same as 1,000 Americans all cutting the pollutants from their new suv tailpipes in half for a year... It makes much more sense for you to not take the frivolous boat trip.
lazs
-
and... as nuke points out... as third world countries are "helped" along they will have higher energy demands...they will use up the oil... we have the strictest emissions standards so it is best if we are the ones who use all the oil instead of the ones who will keep every heap running no matter what.
The oil is gonna get burned... better we do it than yu.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
we have the strictest emissions standards
No, you're STILL not getting it. Your vehicular emissions standards are indeed strict. They ensure that toxic emissions from car exhaust pipes such as carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen (NO2 and NO) - all of which are poisonous to humans - are converted by a 3-way Cat. into Nitrogen, water vapour, and carbon dioxide - none of which is poisonous to humans. The downside is - (and Lazs, please pay attention very carefully - here comes the important bit that you've failed to grasp so far) - that although the gases which come from cars thanks to your emission control standards and catalytic converters are harmless to humans, they are "greenhouse gases" which are directly responsible for global warming. As I understand it, the CO2 acts like a warm blanket around the earth, trapping in heat (hence the nickname "greenhouse gas") and causing an increase in temperature, resulting in polar ice cap meltdown, rising sea levels, land erosion and loss etc. etc. Unless and until you can come up with a way to turn the toxic gases that cars used to emit into gases which are harmless to humans AND which are not "greenhouse gases", the only way to avoid the predicted ecological disaster is to go easy on the oil, until W can announce his long awaited technological miracle. :aok
My boat trip is piddling stuff - the boat has a diesel engine, and the entire 1-week trip will be done on one tank of fuel.
Things could be worse - at least you guys aren't driving cars with 1950s technology which get 5-6mpg. :lol
-
Originally posted by lazs2
we have the strictest emissions standards
and if you have 10 the number of other you polute like them ...
-
Beetle;
I, for one, understand precisely what you are saying. So, let's cut to the chase, shall we?
You started this thread with a proposal to introduce a small levy ... oh heck, let's just call it a tax shall we ... on Americans to cut back on our fossil fuel consumption. Since you keep up with current events, I know you realize that our high technology civilization, you know, the one that supports some six billion people, is a fossil fuel civilization. From everything I have seen in the scientific literature, it will probably remain this way for at least the next fifty years. So, let's look at some numbers and see what you propose to address this problem in the near term.
US Per Capita Income = $40,100
UK Per Capita Income = $29,600
China Per Capita Income = $ 5,600
The US Per Capita Income is, of course, derived from our $11,750,000,000,000 Gross Domestic Production ... a production which is, for all practical purpose, fueled by burning fossil fuels.
What should we Americans do Beetle? Reduce our burning by, say, ten percent? Then...
US GDP = $10,575,000,000,000
US Per Capita Income = $36,090
UK Per Capita Income = $29,600
And of course, there is now more oil in the pipeline, which the Chinese can buy free from any accords, so let's give them a five percent boost, shall we?
China Per Capita Income = $5880
Is the world starting to look better now through your glasses? Yeah, I thought so...
-Rotax447
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Given that the US emits 25% of the world's total greenhouse gas output
Given those figures are guesses by hippies based on energy use I think you're screwed in this thread.
-
so beet.... if we reduce our usage of oil then the third world countries with no emissions standards will use it. They will not only produce as many greenhouse gases but other pollutants that destroy the air and water.
If that is not the case then we need to take all the pollution control devices off our cars right now to stop this global warming.
Point is... there is no reduction of oil used.... It is not going to go unused... who would you like to see be the ones using it?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
Beetle;
I, for one, understand precisely what you are saying. So, let's cut to the chase, shall we?
You started this thread with a proposal to introduce a small levy ... oh heck, let's just call it a tax shall we ... on Americans to cut back on our fossil fuel consumption. Since you keep up with current events, I know you realize that our high technology civilization, you know, the one that supports some six billion people, is a fossil fuel civilization. From everything I have seen in the scientific literature, it will probably remain this way for at least the next fifty years.
Rotax, I started this thread as a discussion about the outcome of the UN Global Warming Summit held last week in Montreal. What prompted me to start it was this leading article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/10/wkyoto10.xml) in Saturday's Daily Telegraph newspaper, whose title was "US out in the cold at world climate talks", by which is meant that the US is isolated in its position of refusing to participate in changes to slow the trend of global warming. Your president, W, prefers instead to trust to some technological miracle which he hopes will come to our rescue on some future date.
My point was that the rest of the world sees the US is by far the biggest contributor to the world's output of greenhouse gases, and yet appears unwilling to address the problem. 157 countries have signed up to the Kyoto treaty, which shows that it's not all about China and Mexico.
I mentioned that in the immediate aftermath of hurricane Katrina which saw spiralling fuel costs, that potential buyers of gas guzzling road vehicles in the US were deterred from buying such vehicles which, I was told, bore a sticker price of some $42K. Their decision came as a direct result of these increased fuel costs. And yet, as I was able to prove in another thread, the increased annual fuel cost would have been only ~$500 for a 12,000 miles/annum user - a piffling amount for someone about to make a $42K purchase. How effective this small increase in costs was at steering people away from such 12mpg gas guzzlers is borne out by the fact that these vehicles had to be discounted to the tune of $15K to make them sell at all. If such vehicles were absolutely essential, their buyers would have swallowed the extra $500 annual expenditure. But no, they seemed quite happy to purchase alternative vehicles or to keep what they had.
We have guys on this board like Ripsnort, who insists that to tow his 21ft boat requires a special vehicle - some V8 monster truck. But I have an uncle who used to tow a much bigger boat (30ft) and who had only an ordinary car to do it. My point here is that folks claim they NEED gas guzzling monsters, which is of course bollocks. US Per Capita Income = $40,100
UK Per Capita Income = $29,600
China Per Capita Income = $ 5,600
The US Per Capita Income is, of course, derived from our $11,750,000,000,000 Gross Domestic Production ... a production which is, for all practical purpose, fueled by burning fossil fuels.
It's not about money. It's about the freaking planet. Your own former president Bill Clinton spoke at the conference: Mr Clinton referred to plans by 192 American mayors, representing 40 million people, to cut emissions by the amount America signed up to under Kyoto when he was president.
The alternative of further global warming and melting ice, he suggested, could lead to a future climate conference in Canada being held on "a raft somewhere".
LOL - a raft. OK, this isn't going to happen this year or next, but action needs to be taken sooner rather than later to safeguard the future of the planet. Your primary concern might be money, but you'd look kind of silly holding a suitcase full of $100 bills, standing ankle deep in water in the middle of Nebraska.
Lazs - I don't have the details as to what constitutes a "developing country" and quite what their exemptions are. My belief is that profligate wastage of fossil fuels now will only store up trouble for the future. YMMV, and probably does.
-
Beet, committing economical suicide to make you happy is insane ;)
Kyoto Treaty would have hurt economy
Luke Wake / Columnist
The Kyoto Global Treaty was aimed at reducing global warming by regulating carbon dioxide emissions of developed nations and the left has heckled the Bush administration for their choice not to sign into this international treaty, which would have had painful repercussions for the American economy. The Bush administration was wisely concerned with the failures of the treaty, which would not only burden all Americans with higher energy costs but would also be ineffective in its aim to reduce global warming. After all the Bush administration certainly does want a healthy environment and a green earth but the Kyoto Treaty would not have been an effective tool for bringing about a more healthy earth because the world's most powerful, and pollutant, economies would not be held accountable to this international treaty.
We cannot really refer to the Kyoto treaty as a "global" treaty because it was never meant to be a "global" treaty but rather a regulation on business in the industrialized world. The question is then, 'what is the industrialized world?' Surely we can agree that Ethiopia and El Salvador are far from developed nations but surely we cannot refer to a nation with a powerhouse economy as undeveloped; yet, the Kyoto Treaty leaves China, the largest industrialized nation in the world, exempt from the same regulatory controls that would be imposed upon the United States and other signing nations. Brazil and India, two other powerhouse economies, with the world's fifth and second largest populace respectively, would be unrestricted by Kyoto.
China alone emits nearly nine billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and without having such pollutant economically powerful nations sign on to the treaty it would have no net effect toward improving the atmosphere. These nations would then be allowed to continue at the same pace of pollution, while Americans pay a higher energy cost.
As we all know, energy costs have already grown exceedingly high. It is difficult for working class families to heat their homes during the winter as the cost of oil is tremendous and even the cost of gasoline has risen steadily. Enacting the Kyoto Treaty would have been devastating to working class families who would have seen their cost of living climb as energy costs rise.
The United States would have spent an additional $400 billion per year for energy according to a 1998 US Energy Information Administration report. Americans would have seen the cost of electricity rise by 86 percent and oil 76 percent if we had signed into Kyoto. We would have also seen a gasoline tax of 66 cents per gallon, which would have made commuting more costly for all of us. This would hurt the American working class the most, as the average household would spend an additional $1,740 in a year.
Recalling the mini-recession our nation was beginning to slip into, as Clinton was finishing his last term, it is a blessing that Al Gore was not in office when Kyoto was being pushed upon the United States. Clinton and Gore endorsed the Kyoto treaty and had Gore signed this bill into effect the recession would have been significantly worse. The energy costs would have led to loss of American jobs and we would not have seen the same growth, economically, as we have seen under Bush and his strong economic recovery.
Certainly the Bush administration has done much for the environment during his first term and the environment is a top concern for all Americans. Yet we cannot subjugate ourselves to economically crippling international protocols, of which other nations will not join with us. It would simply not be fair for Americans to be forced to pay more for their energy, and for American industries to be hurt while unregulated Brazilian, Indian and Chinese industries continue to emit excessive pollution into the environment. Without the agreement of all large and economically powerful nations into such an agreement it would do nothing to improve the environment.
Lastly it has not been proven that global warming is occurring at all, or that it is a problem. Some scientists contend that the earth naturally goes through cycles and that, since 17th century, the world has been naturally warming. It is not for me to say that global warming is or is not a problem, but we should consider the possibility that the left has led a green-scare.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Beet, committing economical suicide to make you happy is insane ;)
Erm... I don't think that choosing more fuel efficient vehicles could be construed as "economical suicide".
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Erm... I don't think that choosing more fuel efficient vehicles could be construed as "economical suicide".
More fuel efficient does not mean less green house gases, Beet. Try again.
As noted by the National Research Council (NRC) in a 1992 report on automobile fuel economy, "Fuel economy improvements will not directly affect vehicle emissions." 15 In fact, the NRC found that higher fuel economy standards could actually have a negative effect on the environment:
Improvements in vehicle fuel economy will have indirect environmental impacts. For example, replacing the cast iron and steel components of vehicles with lighter weight materials (e.g., aluminum, plastics, or composites) may reduce fuel consumption but would generate a different set of environmental impacts, as well as result in different kinds of indirect energy consumption. 16
Nor will increasing CAFE standards halt the alleged problem of "global warming." Cars and light trucks subject to fuel economy standards make up only 1.5 percent of all global man-made greenhouse gas emissions. According to data published in 1991 by the Office of Technology Assessment,
A 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards would reduce greenhouse emissions by only about 0.5 percent, even under the most optimistic assumptions. 17
The NRC additionally noted that "greenhouse gas emissions from the production of substitute materials, such as aluminum, could substantially offset decreases of those emissions achieved through improved fuel economy." 18
CONCLUSION
The CAFE program has failed to achieve its goals. Since its inception, both oil imports and vehicle miles driven have increased while the standards have led to reduced consumer choice and lives lost that could have survived car crashes in heavier vehicles.
The CAFE standards should not be increased. They should be repealed and replaced with free market strategies. Consumers respond to market signals. As past experience shows, competition can lead to a market that makes gas guzzlers less attractive than safer and more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is the right way to foster energy conservation.
Charli E. Coon, J.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1458.cfm
-
Rip - maybe you should read your own link -
Consumers respond to market signals. As past experience shows, competition can lead to a market that makes gas guzzlers less attractive than safer and more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is the right way to foster energy conservation.
Or do you maintain that by driving cars that do 12mpg will result in LESS greenhouse gas than cars that achieve 30mpg? Yeah right, and all 157 signatories to Kyoto are wrong!
Time for bed - TP
:aok
-
Kyoto Treaty would have hurt economy
Luke Wake / Columnist
would have , could have and perhaps will.
I call BS.
Hey Rip. do you have any document older than 1992 ?
I'm sure I can find a very very old document prooving earth is flat.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Rip - maybe you should read your own link - Or do you maintain that by driving cars that do 12mpg will result in LESS greenhouse gas than cars that achieve 30mpg? Yeah right, and all 157 signatories to Kyoto are wrong!
Time for bed - TP
:aok
You should add the entire quote, Beet. You forgot this part:
They should be repealed and replaced with free market strategies. Consumers respond to market signals. As past experience shows, competition can lead to a market that makes gas guzzlers less attractive than safer and more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is the right way to foster energy conservation.
Beet, that means let the free market control it, not Kyoto, not Government. Apparently you must agree with this paragraph, no?
-
Originally posted by straffo
would have , could have and perhaps will.
I call BS.
He bases his article off facts and data, all provided in the Kyoto agreement. Here is a good book about it, I've read it. Our economy would have collapse by now had we been forced to it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691088705/104-4787837-7054321?v=glance&n=283155
Here is a brief synopsis (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691088705/ref=sib_fs_top/104-4787837-7054321?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00M&checkSum=HFE086RM9I94kgExkAfZFgB6gBYUUjw6QuztupwCryA%3D#reader-link)of the book.
I believe the Kyoto is a step in the right direction, its just not the right treaty for keeping nations alive and thriving.
Oh, and FWIW< our CAFE standards have risen significantly. Unfortunately it does nothing for reducing Global warming because the population of the earth increases. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that increasing gas milege is NOT going to reduce global warming. Now, reducing population, that certainly will! ;)
Originally posted by straffo
Hey Rip. do you have any document older than 1992 ?
I'm sure I can find a very very old document prooving earth is flat.
July 11, 2001
Not sure what you're saying? Article was writtein in 2001. :confused:
-
greenhouse gases make the earth warmer.
a warmer earth means less fuel burnt to keep warm.
less fuel burnt to keep warm means less greenhouse gases.
it's simple really.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I believe the Kyoto is a step in the right direction,...
^^^
:aok
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
^^^
:aok
Ah, don't shoe-box me yet! I didn't mean to say its the right treaty, just a step in the right direction! Yes, we need to reduce them, but not the way the treaty has it outlined.
I do like tax credits that our government gives the people for hybrids, that is a perfect example of "Let the market drive it".
-
Oh, and another FWIW, I'm about in the "middle" regarding cause for global warming. I believe it is a cyclic thing the earth goes through, and yes, I believe man can contribute to it, but anyone who believes that man accounts for the majority of global warming is either very arrogant or very misinformed.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
He bases his article off facts and data, all provided in the Kyoto agreement. Here is a good book about it, I've read it. Our economy would have collapse by now had we been forced to it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691088705/104-4787837-7054321?v=glance&n=283155
But as the Kyoto treaty was not accepted this book is only pure speculation
ence the "would have could have ..." part of my post :)
Here is a brief synopsis (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691088705/ref=sib_fs_top/104-4787837-7054321?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00M&checkSum=HFE086RM9I94kgExkAfZFgB6gBYUUjw6QuztupwCryA%3D#reader-link)of the book.
I believe the Kyoto is a step in the right direction, its just not the right treaty for keeping nations alive and thriving.
Oh, and FWIW< our CAFE standards have risen significantly. Unfortunately it does nothing for reducing Global warming because the population of the earth increases. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that increasing gas milege is NOT going to reduce global warming. Now, reducing population, that certainly will! ;)
[/B]
I don't know what CAFE stand for ... I guess you're not speaking of café ? :)
July 11, 2001
Not sure what you're saying? Article was writtein in 2001. :confused: [/B]
but the article is based on older sources :
As noted by the National Research Council (NRC) in a 1992 report on automobile fuel economy,
PS : (ugly frenchman hat on)
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/000/700/725/cafeornl.pdf
:p
-
Originally posted by straffo
But as the Kyoto treaty was not accepted this book is only pure speculation
ence the "would have could have ..." part of my post :)
I don't know what CAFE stand for ... I guess you're not speaking of café ? :)
but the article is based on older sources :
PS : (ugly frenchman hat on)
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/000/700/725/cafeornl.pdf
:p
Well yeah! They're saying we WOULD have been up a creek without a paddle, good thing we DIDN'T ratify! Anyway, the ONE FACT in the article above quotes an older source, so? It doesn't change the fact that the Kyoto treaty was a wash...
-
Beetle;
Okay, so I am standing in water in Nebraska. Now, I have to ask myself, is it because it is raining, or because you are peeing on my leg and telling me it is raining:-)
"It's not about money. It's about the freaking planet."
For Europeans it is about saving the planet. You have a sizable, highly vocal Green Party that is not interested in talking about dollars and sense. Americans are more pragmatic. The hot button mantra of save the planet does not work in American politics. We want jobs, and we want a better standard of living for our children.
"Your own former president Bill Clinton spoke at the conference"
Beetle, do you know who Bill Clinton and George Bush are? They are American millioneers. Stop and think about that for a moment. If the economy goes up, down, or sideways, it does not effect them in the least. A change of Per Capita Income from $40,100 to $36,090 will sure effect the average surf.
Bill Clinton is pandering to far left wing of his party. You know, the politically motivated people who contribute to the Hillary Clinton for President fund. George does the same thing to the far right in his party. There is nothing right or wrong in what they are doing, it is American politics. When Bill or George speak, we surfs who labor for a living at $40,100 per annum, do not throw our critical thinking out the window.
Beetle, put on your critical thinking hat for a moment and answer me this. What was the rational for giving China, India, et.al. an exemption from the Kyoto treaty?
-Rotax447
-
Kyoto is BS, it acheives nothing positive.
Kyoto would cost a million Euro jobs, 80 billion euros by 2010
A new study from European think tank, the International Council for Capital Formation, says even the near term costs of Kyoto to four key European economies could be nearly catastrophic.
Among the ICCF's key findings are projected job losses of at least 200,000 each in Italy, Germany and the UK to meet Kyoto targets by 2010 - and as many as 611,000 in Spain.
The study also found a significant reduction in GDP below base case levels by 2010 was likely in those four economies:
0.8% for Germany (18.5 billion Euros),
3.1% for Spain (26 billion Euros),
2.1% for Italy (27 billion Euros) and
1.1% for the UK (22 billion Euros).
In addition, the ICCF predicts an average increase in electricity prices of 26% and an average increase of 41% of natural gas prices by 2010.
Coming close after the Gleneagles Dialogue meeting of the G8 countries in London, the research underlines Prime Minister Tony Blair's view that countries are 'nervous' about emissions targets and 'would not sacrifice economic growth for external agreements,' the ICCF said.
"The findings of our research support Blair in his recent move away from the 'target and timetable' approach to climate policy - and suggest that an alternative approach is urgently needed for both the developing and developed world.
"A cooperative global approach to reducing emission growth, building on the Asia-Pacific Pact, is more likely to produce real emissions reductions, without damaging economic growth in the EU and elsewhere," said ICCF managing director, Dr Margo Thorning.
The ICCF research, carried out by Global Insight Inc, an international economic modelling firm, assumes that the cost of emission allowances under Kyoto would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher energy prices and ultimately high prices for all goods and services, ICCF said.
The report suggests that the period between 2008-2012 would see severe economic shocks that might lessen after 2012 provided demands were not increased.
"However, achieving targets that are even more aggressive, would take ever larger carbon fees, and would continue to take a significant toll on economic performance.
"For example, if countries were to adopt a post 2012 target of a 60 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2050, Italian industry would pay 54 per cent more for natural gas in 2020 and UK industry would pay 57 per cent more," the study says.
Among the ICCF recommendations are that some costs could be mitigated with the expansion of nuclear power, an option not seen as politically possible in New Zealand.
According to stats the US has decreased its greenhouse emissions despite not being a signatory, and that Europe has increased theirs despite being a signatory.
Kyoto is estimated to cost NZ $1 billion despite us contributing less than 0.4% to global emissions. Despite NZ's major source of power being hydro dams, and despite NZ have a huge forestry industry, we are going to have to buy carbon credits of a bunch of coal burning 3rd world countries. Do you think that'll stop them burning coal? NAH! They'll just buy more cars and luxury goods with their earnings and need more energy creating more pollution.
Kyoto is the biggest pile of poo to come out of the left wing tree hugging hippie camp for a long time. It has a pattern of thought to it that has a the fingerprint of female logic.
-
Ripsnort - ok OK, I see we do have some common ground. You're aware of the problem of global warming, and maybe even the need for fuel conservation, even if Kyoto is not the way to do it. Well that's something. :aok
Admittedly, I don't pretend to know the T&C of Kyoto verbatim, but I'm all for market forces being made to encourage people to conserve natural resources, and try to avoid the ecological catastrophe that looms on the not too distant horizon. As I've said in the past, diesel fuel is taxed less than petrol in most European countries. In Austria and Italy, this has resulted in 60% of all cars being diesel variants - much more fuel efficient, and therefore less crude oil is needed to meet the demands of the motoring public. In Britain, where our chancellor and future PM believes in taxing everything, diesel is even more expensive than petrol, and only 34% of cars are diesels.
It seems that many in the US are happy to trust W to come up with two technological miracles: 1) The miracle to develop a new source of energy to replace oil; 2) The miracle to solve global warming - some sort of chemical to spray into the clouds? So I don't think my own "miracle" is too farfetched: I would like to see further exploration of the diesel concept, with alternative fuels - eg. the bio-diesel option. Diesels are more efficient, but they emit more particulates when powered by hydrocarbon diesel. I would like to see other fuels explored - it should be possible to find one. Even one of Rudolph Diesel's earliest engines ran on peanut oil! - and that was more than 100 years ago.For Europeans it is about saving the planet. You have a sizable, highly vocal Green Party that is not interested in talking about dollars and sense. Americans are more pragmatic. The hot button mantra of save the planet does not work in American politics.
This isssue is not all about Europeans or the British Green Party. As for Kyoto, 157 countries have signed up. There are only 25 European Union member states, plus a few others like Norway, Switzerland that are not members, so as you can see most of the Kyoto signatories are not European. We want jobs, and we want a better standard of living for our children. - rotax
- all the more reason to take the global warming issue more seriously, as it's their generation and the ones beyond that which are going to be affected by global warming. As for jobs, please explain to me how changing to more fuel efficient cars will destroy jobs.
The rationale for soft-pedalling with countries like China, India (and Mexico?) is that those are developing countries. Countries like the US and UK have gone through their industrial age to develop the wealth they have now, why shouldn't other countries? But admittedly, it would be good if they could adopt current western technology to minimise pollution and greenhouse gas output, and not become like those stinking industrial estates of Eastern Europe in the days of the Berlin wall.
So you won't accept the words of your former Mr. President. Will you accept the findings of a team of American scientists?
Arctic ice cap 'will disappear within the century' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2005/10/05/ecnarct05.xml)
Just a hunch - are you MiniD?
greenhouse gases make the earth warmer.
a warmer earth means less fuel burnt to keep warm.
less fuel burnt to keep warm means less greenhouse gases.
it's simple really. - john9001
Simple though it may be, it's still not simple enough for you to understand the problem. In the case of the UK (and possibly other countries too) it will result in climate cooling.
Global warming 'will bring cooler climate for UK' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/01/nclim01.xml)
-
I do believe that the burning of fossile fuels is a major contributor to the global warming. If the majority of scientist are correct, then it's way too late to stop it with any kind of treaties.
BUT, the problem will take care of itself after the oil production reaches it's peak, and the oil prices skyrocket(PEAK oil) (http://). The consumption will then inevitably go down, hopefully solving this global warming issue.
When it happens those countries who have allready cut their use of fossile fuels will be in a better position, than those who haven't. These treaties are one way to prepare for the future. Actually they might have been drafted just for that reason, but are marketed to the public as something else.
-
Beetle;
Please bear with me. I majored in physics, not environmental, chemical, petroleum, or automotive engineering, and certainly not politics. I look at things which are complex, and try and break them down into simple, easy to understand components. Contrast this to my engineering colleagues, who are always taking something simple, and turning them into something which is devilishly complex. Are you, by any chance, an engineer?
I take global warming very seriously. I do not take environmentalists or politicians seriously, when they do not give me the facts and figures necessary to make an informed, intelligent, decision.
Let's start with something simple, like running my car on peanut butter, rather than gasoline. Both gasoline and peanut butter are hydrocarbon based fuels. They produce energy by combining with oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. The by product of that chemical bonding is carbon dioxide. What is the difference in carbon dioxide emission, between a tank of gasoline, and a tank of peanut butter? I don't know! Bill Clinton never told me! I sure would like to know, before I start burning peanut butter in my automobile.
To fill my tank up with gasoline, I need an oil well, a pump, a ship, a refinery, and a truck. To fill my tank with peanut butter, I need a farm, fertilizer, pesticides, tractors, a truck, a refinery, and a truck. All of those objects require fossil fuels to manufacture or function. If peanut butter is indeed producing less carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline, then how about the farming, and the refinement of peanut butter. Does it produce more carbon dioxide emissions than the refinement of gasoline? I don't know! Algore never told me! I sure would like to know, before I start refining peanut butter for my automobile.
Here is quick reality check. If the tank of peanut butter cost more then the tank of gasoline, then you can bet your free market economy that the peanut butter costs more energy to produce than the gasoline.
Are fuel efficient cars the way to go? I honestly can't even answer that! If a hybrid car, manufactured with aluminum, plastics, ceramics, carbon composites, lead acid batteries, and a peanut butter burning engine, costs $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000 more than a less fuel efficient car, then how much total energy have I saved? I don't know! Beetle never told me! I sure would like to know, before I manufacture that car.
Enough of the engineering, let's move on to the politics. One hundred fifty-seven countries have signed onto the Kyoto accords. Included in those signatures are China, India, Mexico, and Brazil. Countries which are admired and respected throughout Europe, for their environmental policies and concerns. So, what did you do at Kyoto to reward them for those policies and concerns? You gave them a burn fossil fuel free card! You knew that if you told them that their economies would have zero, or negative growth for a generation, they would tell you to stick the treaty where the sun never shines. What happened to saving the planet? Are you telling me that their fossil fuels don't cause rain in Nebraska? And how do we ensure that they have the fuel to burn? Simple, take it away from those rich, greedy, Americans.
Once again Beetle, my questions stands. How much energy do you want to take away from us? I gave you the numbers ... rise above Bill Clinton and Algore and give me an honest answer.
-Rotax447
-
what am I not seeing?
if the U.S. cut it's fossil fuel burning in half... would the world use that much less? Nope... the same amount would be used... it would get cheaper and "developing" nations would want more of it.
They of course would have no such economy restricting measures and would drive any POS that would run on the (now) very cheap gas.
the more we use the more that get's used under strict smog device rules.
The less we use the more that get's used in third world countries.
Or maybe... you could get the arabs to not sell cheap oil?
probly the worst waste and the worst polluters are the airlines... why not stop all travel that wasn't approved by the UN? Same for boats... riding around for pleasure is just sinful what with the ice caps melting and all...
surely you could all forgo a little travel on your vacations to save the planet?
Beet... I would love to see you pull a boat bigger than rips up some of the "hills" we have here with a 1.8 liter car. You would make people very angry.
and... as vulcan says... if the U.S. is the only country to reduce greenhouse gasses.... all the rest of you need to get with it before you talk to us.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
I take global warming very seriously. I do not take environmentalists or politicians seriously, when they do not give me the facts and figures necessary to make an informed, intelligent, decision.
Let's start with something simple, like running my car on peanut butter, rather than gasoline. Both gasoline and peanut butter are hydrocarbon based fuels. They produce energy by combining with oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. The by product of that chemical bonding is carbon dioxide. What is the difference in carbon dioxide emission, between a tank of gasoline, and a tank of peanut butter? I don't know! Bill Clinton never told me! I sure would like to know, before I start burning peanut butter in my automobile.
To fill my tank up with gasoline, I need an oil well, a pump, a ship, a refinery, and a truck. To fill my tank with peanut butter, I need a farm, fertilizer, pesticides, tractors, a truck, a refinery, and a truck. All of those objects require fossil fuels to manufacture or function. If peanut butter is indeed producing less carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline, then how about the farming, and the refinement of peanut butter. Does it produce more carbon dioxide emissions than the refinement of gasoline? I don't know! Algore never told me! I sure would like to know, before I start refining peanut butter for my automobile.
Here is quick reality check. If the tank of peanut butter cost more then the tank of gasoline, then you can bet your free market economy that the peanut butter costs more energy to produce than the gasoline.
The idea of the pro-biofuel people is that the growth process has tied up the carbon from CO2 of the atmosphere, so there's no extra CO2 emission as there is when burning fossile fuels. In short, the CO2 turns to C during the growth process and back to CO2 when you burn the plant. The refining process doesn't take nearly as much energy as refining crude, but it takes considerable energy nevertheless.
You are right about about the farming pesticides etc. That's the reason why biofuels suffer from terrible "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI). At best it's around 3:1 in the case of biodiesel, and 1:6 in the case of ethanol, and some people(and the EU) thinks it's a good idea to burn ethanol to power vehicles!! I don't have anything against biofuels, but they aren't going to provide a cheap alternative to fossile fuels, ever.
Originally posted by Rotax447
Are fuel efficient cars the way to go? I honestly can't even answer that! If a hybrid car, manufactured with aluminum, plastics, ceramics, carbon composites, lead acid batteries, and a peanut butter burning engine, costs $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000 more than a less fuel efficient car, then how much total energy have I saved? I don't know! Beetle never told me! I sure would like to know, before I manufacture that car.
Of course they are the way to go, but sadly the focus in development has lately been towards safety instead of economics. If the cars would be designed towards low weight and fuel efficiency they would consume half of what they do now. Not hard to achieve at all if there would be will to do it. But there's no point to scrap your existing vehicle to buy a new one.
Originally posted by Rotax447
Enough of the engineering, let's move on to the politics. One hundred fifty-seven countries have signed onto the Kyoto accords. Included in those signatures are China, India, Mexico, and Brazil. Countries which are admired and respected throughout Europe, for their environmental policies and concerns. So, what did you do at Kyoto to reward them for those policies and concerns? You gave them a burn fossil fuel free card! You knew that if you told them that their economies would have zero, or negative growth for a generation, they would tell you to stick the treaty where the sun never shines.
I totally agree with you. However I'm not worried at all because I trust peak oil to take care of this issue(if there's anything to be done). It's a 100% binding "contract". We will all lose, but the biggest losers will be those who consume most.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No, you're STILL not getting it. The downside is - (and Lazs, please pay attention very carefully - here comes the important bit that you've failed to grasp so far) - that although the gases which come from cars thanks to your emission control standards and catalytic converters are harmless to humans, they are "greenhouse gases" which are directly responsible for global warming. As I understand it, the CO2 acts like a warm blanket around the earth, trapping in heat (hence the nickname "greenhouse gas") and causing an increase in temperature, resulting in polar ice cap meltdown, rising sea levels, land erosion and loss etc. etc. Unless and until you can come up with a way to turn the toxic gases that cars used to emit into gases which are harmless to humans AND which are not "greenhouse gases", the only way to avoid the predicted ecological disaster is to go easy on the oil, until W can announce his long awaited technological miracle. :aok
CO2? You left out the part about animals exhaling CO2. Maybe mass genocide would cater to your needs?
Karaya
-
Yeah, and the marching pro Kyoto commies are actually contributing to the global warming!:)
Of course population should be in a level that the planet can support. This is another matter I trust to take care of itself. Of course we shouldn't take any measures to increase population growth rates anywhere. Genocide OTOH would be immoral, those who seriously suggest that should start by offing themselves.(Not you Karaya;))
-
Originally posted by mora
Yeah, and the marching pro Kyoto commies are actually contributing to the global warming!:)
Of course population should be in a level that the planet can support. This is another matter I trust to take care of itself. Of course we shouldn't take any measures to increase population growth rates anywhere. Genocide OTOH would be immoral, those who seriously suggest that should start by offing themselves.(Not you Karaya;))
To the Zoo's!!!!!! Come on gents!
Karaya
-
No way! Gunpowder contains carbon too!:) And knives should be banned too.
I think I'd make a decent enviro nazi.
-
Originally posted by mora
No way! Gunpowder contains carbon too!:) And knives should be banned too.
I think I'd make a decent enviro nazi.
:D
Karaya
-
^ ^ ^
:rofl
-
Originally posted by mora
The idea of the pro-biofuel people is that the growth process has tied up the carbon from CO2 of the atmosphere, so there's no extra CO2 emission as there is when burning fossile fuels. In short, the CO2 turns to C during the growth process and back to CO2 when you burn the plant. The refining process doesn't take nearly as much energy as refining crude, but it takes considerable energy nevertheless.
You are right about about the farming pesticides etc. That's the reason why biofuels suffer from terrible "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI). At best it's around 3:1 in the case of biodiesel, and 1:6 in the case of ethanol, and some people(and the EU) thinks it's a good idea to burn ethanol to power vehicles!! I don't have anything against biofuels, but they aren't going to provide a cheap alternative to fossile fuels, ever.
[/B]
I knew about the low CO2 emissions using biofuel; I did not know the EROEI ratios ... good information.
Of course they are the way to go, but sadly the focus in development has lately been towards safety instead of economics. If the cars would be designed towards low weight and fuel efficiency they would consume half of what they do now. Not hard to achieve at all if there would be will to do it. But there's no point to scrap your existing vehicle to buy a new one.
[/B]
I don't mind driving a smaller, more fuel efficient car, so that some working stiff in Thailand or China can afford to ride her Vespa to work. We are one planet, and a large disparity between the have, and the have nots, is neither desirable or stable. Care must still be taken not to go overboard, lest the manufacturing cost of fuel efficient cars, negates the fuel savings of operating those cars.
I totally agree with you. However I'm not worried at all because I trust peak oil to take care of this issue(if there's anything to be done). It's a 100% binding "contract". We will all lose, but the biggest losers will be those who consume most.
To be honest, I am worried about this one, and the reason is coal. As I'm sure you know, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Twenty-five percent of the worlds coal reserve sits in the hills of Wyoming and Montana. As long as oil is in the $40, $50, $60 per barrel range, it is cheaper, and more energy efficient, for us to pump it out of the middle east. Somewhere around the $80, $100, $120 per barrel range, that will no longer be the case. We will start liquefying our coal, and using the energy from our coal, to produce biofuel. The coal will last for hundreds of years, and the CO2 emissions will go through the roof.
-Rotax447
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
We will start liquefying our coal, and using the energy from our coal, to produce biofuel. The coal will last for hundreds of years, and the CO2 emissions will go through the roof.
-Rotax447
It would be more efficient to burn the coal directly, (Coal is like 40% or better of the electrical energy produced in the USA anyway) and using the Fischer-Tropsch method as is being used in China, South Africa, and a pilot refinery in the Powder River Basin, we can produce liquid fuel for vehicles.
The break even price I have seen is about $50/bbl, so we should be able to do it now.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It would be more efficient to burn the coal directly, (Coal is like 40% or better of the electrical energy produced in the USA anyway) and using the Fischer-Tropsch method as is being used in China, South Africa, and a pilot refinery in the Powder River Basin, we can produce liquid fuel for vehicles.
The break even price I have seen is about $50/bbl, so we should be able to do it now.
It looks like FT synthesis will produce diesel fuel at a cost about ten percent higher than the middle eastern blend. You are right. Somewhere around the $50, $60, $70 per barrel range, the US will kiss the Saudi royal family goodbye. I am sure that they are well aware of this, so I expect they will keep the price down.
There is a downside to this. That ten percent difference in price will result in increased CO2 emissions. We would have to convert our automobiles to stronger, more expensive diesel engines. Build dozens of synthesis plants. Mine more iron and cobalt as a catalyst for FT synthesis. Out CO2 emissions would certainly go over thirty percent. Beetle would have a stroke. After a hundred years or so, the hills of Wyoming would be as flat as Nebraska, and Nebraska would be under water from the melting of the polar ice caps. Oh well, such is progress:-)
On the bright side ... what do you all think of ITER? I know it is some fifty years off, still, considering the processing power required to keep the magnetic containment field in place, that time frame seems reasonable to me.
-Rotax447
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
It looks like FT synthesis will produce diesel fuel at a cost about ten percent higher than the middle eastern blend. You are right. Somewhere around the $50, $60, $70 per barrel range, the US will kiss the Saudi royal family goodbye. I am sure that they are well aware of this, so I expect they will keep the price down.
There is a downside to this. That ten percent difference in price will result in increased CO2 emissions. We would have to convert our automobiles to stronger, more expensive diesel engines. Build dozens of synthesis plants. Mine more iron and cobalt as a catalyst for FT synthesis. Out CO2 emissions would certainly go over thirty percent. Beetle would have a stroke. After a hundred years or so, the hills of Wyoming would be as flat as Nebraska, and Nebraska would be under water from the melting of the polar ice caps. Oh well, such is progress:-)
On the bright side ... what do you all think of ITER? I know it is some fifty years off, still, considering the processing power required to keep the magnetic containment field in place, that time frame seems reasonable to me.
-Rotax447
so....where do you predict the beachfront property will be at?
-
Beet has been beat and has left the room >>>>>>>>>>>>
-
Rotax - I said peanut OIL, not peanut BUTTER! :lol
No, I am not an engineer and never was. What I find funny is that you seem quite dismissive of any sort of exploration with regard to the peanut oil possibility, and yet seem to have both feet firmly planted in the camp which is trusting W to come up with two miracles - the miracle to find a new energy source when all the oil is gone, and the miracle to solve global warming. The peanut oil/bio-diesel might alleviate the difficulties we might experience when the oil runs out, and given that some people want to see that day sooner rather than later, we might not have long to wait. You're right, and of course the burning of any type of fuel in a vehicle combustion process is going to produce CO2. I've no idea what sort of gas mileage a vehicle burning peanut oil would get, but tell me: Is it possible to make gasoline from peanut oil, or is that going to be W's third miracle? I don't claim to have the figures you want. I'm not a scientist either. ALL I said was "I would like to see further exploration of the diesel concept, with alternative fuels - eg. the bio-diesel option." - and I think that's more constructive than trusting in W's miracles.
Ripsnort tried to argue earlier that a more fuel efficient vehicle will still generate the same volume of greenhouse gas. This is bollocks. In Europe as in America, a typical car is offered with a choice of engines. The car I have is offered with a range of petrol engines going from 1.6 to 3.2 litres. Only the engine is different, drivetrain, and maybe some of the instruments and trim. The body shell is the same - so am I to believe that the 1.6 variant that burns half as much fuel is responsible for the same volume of greenhouse gas? I think not.
Hmm Rotax, I can see why it's going to be so hard to get the US to green up. First, you have a president (Reagan) whose energy policy was governed by "what would be popular". Then there was that US politician described by Sagan who thought the answer to global warming was a pair of sunglasses. There are people here who "see no reason" to limit the burning of fossil fuels. Then there are those who think that it would be a "good thing" to burn the world's remaining oil stocks in the shortest time possible. Some think that because their car has a catalytic converter that they're "doing their part for clean air", without realising that having solved one problem (toxic emissions) another has been created (greenhouse gases). And then of course there are those who mock the entire issue - reference to cow farts etc. And a large swathe of the motoring public who think that 12mpg is "reasonable". Funny how you didn't take those folks to task, but pour cold water over the mere suggestion of exploration of alternative fuels...
Ho-hum, there's only one thing to say - Toodle Pip!
-
I just did a search through the Telegraph website, and found 1300+ articles about global warming. This one made me smile...
Arctic dwellers sue US over warming (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/09/nsci209.xml)
-
No, no, Beetle, you said toodle pip.
You can't come back and post after you say toodle pip, it's bad etiquette.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Ho-hum, there's only one thing to say - Toodle Pip!
"Toodle Pip"?? What the heck is that??
But seriously, the less fuel I use, the more I get charged for it. I really think we've got to get beyond "Peak Oil" before we see any serious exploration for alternatives. Also the "Cow Fart" joke you elude to is a very real problem. Bovine emmisions account for a lot of the greenhouse gases we have today. What you are suggesting is that we delay the inevitable. I would guarentee that "Big Oil" will become "Big (insert next fuel source here)" as soon as it is no longer profitable to drill for oil.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I just did a search through the Telegraph website, and found 1300+ articles about global warming. This one made me smile...
Arctic dwellers sue US over warming (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/09/nsci209.xml)
The possible destrution of these people's way of life makes you smile? What kind of a sicko are you?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You're right, and of course the burning of any type of fuel in a vehicle combustion process is going to produce CO2. I've no idea what sort of gas mileage a vehicle burning peanut oil would get, but tell me: Is it possible to make gasoline from peanut oil, or is that going to be W's third miracle? I don't claim to have the figures you want. I'm not a scientist either. ALL I said was "I would like to see further exploration of the diesel concept, with alternative fuels - eg. the bio-diesel option." - and I think that's more constructive than trusting in W's miracles.
The only CO2 emissions from biofuels are from refining, farming and transportation, and equipment manufacturing. If you go fully biofuel the CO2 emissions might drop to 1/3. The only viable biofuel is biodiesel, which can be made out of just about anything, even from leftover MC Donalds frying oil. I've tested my car with straight rapeseed oil and it worked. The only problem is that if we want to run all our cars with biofuel we wouldn't have anything to eat.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Ripsnort tried to argue earlier that a more fuel efficient vehicle will still generate the same volume of greenhouse gas. This is bollocks. In Europe as in America, a typical car is offered with a choice of engines. The car I have is offered with a range of petrol engines going from 1.6 to 3.2 litres. Only the engine is different, drivetrain, and maybe some of the instruments and trim. The body shell is the same - so am I to believe that the 1.6 variant that burns half as much fuel is responsible for the same volume of greenhouse gas? I think not.
You think wrong. Depending on the situation a larger engine may prove more effecient. Simply stating a smaller engine burns half as much fuel exposes a very limited understanding of energy in general.
-
Of course the engine should be suitable for the use of the vehicle. The efficiency of a gasoline engine is at it's best when it's operated close to it's maximum load. In a Diesel the situation is similar, but the "green" area is much wider.
The American way to build engines is very inefficient. You build an engine with huge displacement but it's usually operated far below it's maximum loading. The efficiency of the engine drops to around 15% in these situations. Turbocharging is a much better way to generate power in the rare situations when it's needed. This is also the idea of the hybrid cars. The engine is small but it's efficient when cruising, when you need extra power during accelerations the electric motor comes to help.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Rotax - I said peanut OIL, not peanut BUTTER! :lol
[/B]
Sorry, Freudian slip on my part. After all these years, I still enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch. I find they give me a high energy boost, with very little gas emission in return.
No, I am not an engineer and never was. What I find funny is that you seem quite dismissive of any sort of exploration with regard to the peanut oil possibility, and yet seem to have both feet firmly planted in the camp which is trusting W to come up with two miracles - the miracle to find a new energy source when all the oil is gone, and the miracle to solve global warming. The peanut oil/bio-diesel might alleviate the difficulties we might experience when the oil runs out, and given that some people want to see that day sooner rather than later, we might not have long to wait. You're right, and of course the burning of any type of fuel in a vehicle combustion process is going to produce CO2. I've no idea what sort of gas mileage a vehicle burning peanut oil would get, but tell me: Is it possible to make gasoline from peanut oil, or is that going to be W's third miracle? I don't claim to have the figures you want. I'm not a scientist either. ALL I said was "I would like to see further exploration of the diesel concept, with alternative fuels - eg. the bio-diesel option." - and I think that's more constructive than trusting in W's miracles.
[/b]
What I find hilarious is that I did not dismiss using biofuel in any post. I asked two questions concerning the use of biofuel...
1) What is the difference in CO2 emissions between biofuel vis-a-vis gasoline?
2) What is the energy return on energy invested ratio between growing and refining biofuel, verses pumping and refining gasoline?
You never answered those questions; Mora did. So you see, it is not biofuel that I dismiss Beetle, it is you that I dismiss.
Ripsnort tried to argue earlier that a more fuel efficient vehicle will still generate the same volume of greenhouse gas. This is bollocks. In Europe as in America, a typical car is offered with a choice of engines. The car I have is offered with a range of petrol engines going from 1.6 to 3.2 litres. Only the engine is different, drivetrain, and maybe some of the instruments and trim. The body shell is the same - so am I to believe that the 1.6 variant that burns half as much fuel is responsible for the same volume of greenhouse gas? I think not.
[/b]
I choose to drive a fuel efficient vehicle, so that some fellow worker in India or China can afford to ride their Vespa to work. Ripsnort chooses to drive a less fuel efficient vehicle, so that he can tow his boat. These are individual choices that are best left to individual Americans. After all Beetle, what could be more American than freedom of choice?
Hmm Rotax, I can see why it's going to be so hard to get the US to green up. First, you have a president (Reagan) whose energy policy was governed by "what would be popular". Then there was that US politician described by Sagan who thought the answer to global warming was a pair of sunglasses. There are people here who "see no reason" to limit the burning of fossil fuels. Then there are those who think that it would be a "good thing" to burn the world's remaining oil stocks in the shortest time possible. Some think that because their car has a catalytic converter that they're "doing their part for clean air", without realising that having solved one problem (toxic emissions) another has been created (greenhouse gases). And then of course there are those who mock the entire issue - reference to cow farts etc. And a large swathe of the motoring public who think that 12mpg is "reasonable". Funny how you didn't take those folks to task, but pour cold water over the mere suggestion of exploration of alternative fuels...
[/b]
Beetle, I gave you 11,750,000,000,000 reasons why it is hard for the US to green up, and each and every one of those reasons are dependent on fossil fuel.
Reagan's first and foremost policy was do not harm to the American economy. If you had bothered to check out the economic mess that his predecessor left us in, you would understand why.
Beetle, you and I can both agree on one thing. We both know that you are not a stupid man. But I have to tell you, if you persist on not answering this one, simple, question, others on this board will begin to have their doubts.
The United States is burning twenty-five percent of the worlds annual fossil fuel production. We convert the burnt fuel into $11,750,000,000,000 worth of wealth. HOW MUCH IN THE NAME OF SAVING THE PLANET DO YOU WANT TO REDUCE THAT WEALTH?
Ho-hum, there's only one thing to say - Toodle Pip!
Adios
-Rotax447
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
You think wrong. Depending on the situation a larger engine may prove more effecient. Simply stating a smaller engine burns half as much fuel exposes a very limited understanding of energy in general.
No, I was speaking from experience. My last car was a VW Golf, as were the two before that. The first two each had a 2.8i V6 petrol engine. My average fuel consumption for those was around 27mpg overall. The last one had a 1.9 TDi engine and was an excellent allround performer. It averaged close to 48mpg in the time I had it. I think mora is right in what he says. The TDi engine is more efficient over a wider range of uses. Any doubts I had were allayed during the test drive. Even tootling around town I'd still get ~40mpg; In the V6, that would drop to less than 20. My current car is an Audi A3. I still have the link to the online spec. Check out the following table for the level of CO2 content emitted by all models in the range. You'll see that CO2 output is in direct proportion to engine size. http://www.audi.co.uk/newcars/range.jsp?section=/models/a3/a3
Rotax, Well I'm sorry you had to dismiss me! But let me remind you - this thread does not exist to discuss the viability of bio diesel/peanut oil/whatever. In a previous post you seized on a one line suggestion I made - that other forms of energy should be explored, and merely mentioned as an example that Rudolph Diesel himself had tried peanut oil in one his early engine, now more than 100 years ago. 1) What is the difference in CO2 emissions between biofuel vis-a-vis gasoline?
2) What is the energy return on energy invested ratio between growing and refining biofuel, verses pumping and refining gasoline?
I think these questions are deliberately fatuous. How the hell would I know? And before you leap to the "ahhh we've got Beet, he doesn't know and therefore we can dismiss biodiesel as an alternative" stance, let me remind you once again that I simply said I'd like to see other energy alternatives explored. The answers to your questions would emerge from that exploration. Biodiesel is not the subject of this thread, but an aside. This thread is about two related issues: 1)Depletion of known oil reserves faster than new ones can be discovered; 2) The harm done to the earth by greenhouse gases. The frivolous waste of road fuel in gas guzzling vehicles exacerbates BOTH of these problems. Ripsnort chooses to drive a less fuel efficient vehicle, so that he can tow his boat. These are individual choices that are best left to individual Americans. After all Beetle, what could be more American than freedom of choice?
Fine. I am free to make the same choices myself. But as I was able to prove earlier, it is not necessary to drive a "less fuel efficient vehicle" in order to be able to tow a boat. As I said earlier, my uncle's boat was much bigger than Rip's - 30ft against 21ft - and he just used an ordinary European car to tow it, not a land rover or some V8 monster truck. I myself have towed a 30ft glider trailer behind a car with a 1.8 litre engine - no problem at all. Also (for Lazs) guys with cars exactly like mine towed gliders up to the Long Mynd - quite a hilly region. The road to the top is about 1-in-6. There seems to be a myth amongst some Americans that a V8 monster truck is necessary to tow anything bigger than a two wheel trailer, myth being the operative word. Beetle, I gave you 11,750,000,000,000 reasons why it is hard for the US to green up, and each and every one of those reasons are dependent on fossil fuel.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how switching to driving more fuel efficient cars would hurt the economy. The second third and fourth largest economies in the world are Japan, Germany and the UK, and none of those countries has ever needed a nationwide fleet of gas guzzlers to achieve its wealth.
Hard for the US to green up? Maybe, but as you pressed me on the biodiesel option, allow me to press you on the green up issue. This thread is not a debate about whether global warming exists - we both know it does, and that's why last week's conference in Montreal was held. But what are your suggestions on how to deal with it? Are you just going to stick your head in the sand and hope the problem will go away? Are you trusting in W's miracle technology? You're a forward looking guy - you're anxious that your children/grandchildren will have a secure future and jobs. But at the rate things are going, they won't even have a planet if we don't stop forking it up with greenhouse gases the way we are now.
I ask again - if the US is not prepared to make cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, then how are we to avoid the ecological catastrophe that awaits the children being born in this century?
Rotax, you and I can both agree on one thing. We both know that you are not a stupid man. But I have to tell you, if you persist on not answering this one, simple, question, others on this board will begin to have their doubts.
-
Originally posted by mora
The only CO2 emissions from biofuels are from refining, farming and transportation, and equipment manufacturing. If you go fully biofuel the CO2 emissions might drop to 1/3. The only viable biofuel is biodiesel, which can be made out of just about anything, even from leftover MC Donalds frying oil. I've tested my car with straight rapeseed oil and it worked. The only problem is that if we want to run all our cars with biofuel we wouldn't have anything to eat.
The irony of this does not escape me. We have far more people dying in the world from starvation, than are dying from global warming, or lack of fuel. This causes me to question the the motives of the Greens. Saving the planet is a noble idea. I wish they would use the same political energy to care for the lives, or livelihoods, of the people who live on the planet.
-Rotax447
-
Well, I agree with you Beetle, neither one of us are stupid:aok
The second third and fourth largest economies in the world are Japan, Germany and the UK, and none of those countries has ever needed a nationwide fleet of gas guzzlers to achieve its wealth.
[/b]
Let me give you some facts. In 1970 I drove a car with a 7 liter engine. It weighed almost 6000 pounds and my gas mileage was in the 6-8 MPG range for city driving. In 1970, the US GDP was $1,035,600,000,000.
In 2005 I drive a car that has half the weight. My gas mileage is 25 MPG for city driving. The US GDP is $11,750,000,000,000. Let's do the math, shall we? I have archived a four fold efficiency in my fuel consumption, and the US economy has grown by an order of magnitude! It seems to me that as my fuel efficiency increases, my economy also increases, at better than a 2 to 1 ratio. This makes sense, since there is more fuel to burn for construction, manufacturing, and powering the Internet. Beetle, where, oh where, in these numbers, does it show that the US is not increasing the fuel efficiency of it's automobiles?
I ask again - if the US is not prepared to make cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, then how are we to avoid the ecological catastrophe that awaits the children being born in this century?
Rotax, you and I can both agree on one thing. We both know that you are not a stupid man. But I have to tell you, if you persist on not answering this one, simple, question, others on this board will begin to have their doubts.
This one is easy to answer, since it involves no engineering on my part. There are two ways to attack the problem ... well, three, actually, but I have no intention of slowing down US economic growth as a solution. The atmospheric CO2 levels are slowing down the re-radiation of surface heat from the earth. So...
1) Increase the biomass to absorb some of the excess CO2. In other words, plant a tree, or two, or ten. Contrast this solution to Brazil, which is burning off the largest biomass concentration on earth!
2) The oceans are the heat sink of the planet, so decrease the solar radiation striking the oceans. Place some large, thin, plastic sheets in geosynchronous orbit over the Pacific Ocean to attenuate the UV radiation. If it is still too hot, add more sheets. Getting too cold, remove some sheets. Works just like a set of venetian blinds on a window.
The cool thing about these solutions are that they are a net creator of jobs, which will, no doubt, give any self respecting Green a fit!
Care to give me the figures now on how much wealth you want to remove from the US economy? :D
-Rotax447
-
Originally posted by mora
The only CO2 emissions from biofuels are from refining, farming and transportation, and equipment manufacturing. If you go fully biofuel the CO2 emissions might drop to 1/3. The only viable biofuel is biodiesel, which can be made out of just about anything, even from leftover MC Donalds frying oil. I've tested my car with straight rapeseed oil and it worked. The only problem is that if we want to run all our cars with biofuel we wouldn't have anything to eat.
as I've said before the liberals (greens) hate us, the economy, the environment, each other, themselves and their mothers. they are best ignored and occassionally, when their numbers swell, culled. the french had a nice program for that.
-
Well the greens have the EU convinced. The EU in it's great wisdom is making 5% biofuel content compulsary on all sold motor fuels by 2008. This means that there will be 5% of ethanol added to all gasoline. As mentioned earlier, ethanol has an EROEI of 1:6 which means it takes 6 times as much energy to produce as you get. Most of it will be likely to be bought from Brasil, which is cutting down it's rain forests to make room for sugar cane. Total madness...
-
The one thing that kills me is Green Building Design.
Being in touch with actual architects 24/7 I can't ever not hear about this BS.
What it is is that it takes known building methods to try to cut down on heating and cooling costs. Add onto that the use of recycled materials.
So these buildings are expensive as hell to make in the hope that the future costs of the building will be much less.
Note the key word "Hope" in there...
-
Originally posted by mora
Well the greens have the EU convinced. The EU in it's great wisdom is making 5% biofuel content compulsary on all sold motor fuels by 2008. This means that there will be 5% of ethanol added to all gasoline. As mentioned earlier, ethanol has an EROEI of 1:6 which means it takes 6 times as much energy to produce as you get. Most of it will be likely to be bought from Brasil, which is cutting down it's rain forests to make room for sugar cane. Total madness...
Total madness indeed, but wait, it gets even better...
Our flexible fuel vehicles running on a mixture of 85% ethanol 15% gasoline (E85) are achieving a remarkable 5% to 15% decrease in fuel efficiency. This because ethanol provides less energy per combustion cycle. It is about twice as bad for turbocharged vehicles.
Absolute, total, madness ...
-Rotax447
-
rotax is putting it very well... fuel efficient cars are selling in the U.S. with no pressure from taxes or penalties. Most U.S. cars get at least 25 mpg average.
You can probly pull a boat with a vespa up a hill if you have enough time and don't mind killing the vespa. I don't even own a boat tho.
And as for bio diesel? for the most part it is madness... if you mandated it... made people grow crops for it... more harm than good would come from it. people would starve and.. as mora points out... the rain forrest would probly be decimated causing more greenhouse gasses to exist.
but the most telling thing is that beet won't answer the real point.... How much are you willing to allow the U.S. economy to shrink? My guess is... somewhere below his (countries) I think that is pretty much what most your o peans want out of this whole deal. One world government and socialism for all... missery for all.
In closing... I have never seen a government solve anything... only make it worse... I see no difference here with this treaty.... half baked science and conflicting interest and blundering power hungry governments all trying to increase their power with an environmental excuse.
Who would stop the south americans from burning their rain forests? Who would stop the chinesse from driving any old heap that got em around or dumping toxic waste in the rivers and lakes of their own country?
And beet... what of limiting all travel that is not necessary? would you go for that if it reduced co2? How much does a jet airliner put out?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
And beet... what of limiting all travel that is not necessary? would you go for that if it reduced co2? How much does a jet airliner put out?
lazs
And just what would they (your o peans) consider "necessary travel"? In Eorope a lot of people take the train to work. Most of them cannot fathom how huge and far apart everything is here. In a country that is 90% (guessing) rural, an efficient, effective mass transit system is not feasable (although LA's lack of one certainly points out treehugging hypocracy).
-
The United States is burning twenty-five percent of the worlds annual fossil fuel production. We convert the burnt fuel into $11,750,000,000,000 worth of wealth. HOW MUCH IN THE NAME OF SAVING THE PLANET DO YOU WANT TO REDUCE THAT WEALTH?
Why reduce it at all? Why just not increase US efficency levels to closer to those of other first world countries?
Dollars of GDP, per ton of carbon emitted from fossil fuels:
US $7,327
Japan $14,098
Germany $12,379
UK $14,452
France $19,954
(World's 5 largest economies, gdp from world bank, carbon emissions from Oak Ridge national laboratory)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Why reduce it at all? Why just not increase US efficency levels to closer to those of other first world countries?
Dollars of GDP, per ton of carbon emitted from fossil fuels:
US $7,327
Japan $14,098
Germany $12,379
UK $14,452
France $19,954
(World's 5 largest economies, gdp from world bank, carbon emissions from Oak Ridge national laboratory)
As soon as our travel distances are as close as those countries you mention, I think we can accompany the request. Do you have a solution for shrinking our continent?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
As soon as our travel distances are as close as those countries you mention, I think we can accompany the request. Do you have a solution for shrinking our continent?
Travel distance as nothing to do with fuel efficiency.
Whatever the country if you have 500 miles to do you will use less fuel using a car at 12mpg than with a car at 25mpg.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Why reduce it at all? Why just not increase US efficency levels to closer to those of other first world countries?
Dollars of GDP, per ton of carbon emitted from fossil fuels:
US $7,327
Japan $14,098
Germany $12,379
UK $14,452
France $19,954
(World's 5 largest economies, gdp from world bank, carbon emissions from Oak Ridge national laboratory)
sure then we just have to remove all the environment controls and restrictions that we apply to our industies. that would just about put us on the same playing field as the rest of you guys.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Travel distance as nothing to do with fuel efficiency.
Whatever the country if you have 500 miles to do you will use less fuel using a car at 12mpg than with a car at 25mpg.
The numbers quoted have nothing to do with fuel efficiency. They are fossil fuels burned compared to GDP. How do you get to work straffo? How far is the commute?
I met two guys from Liverpool about 20 years ago. They were on a summer hitch-hiking tour of the US. Their number one amzement with the US was just how huge it is and how far apart everything is. "Twenty miles between towns? That's unbelievable."
Most responsible Americans that are on a budget have fuel efficient vehicles that they use to commute to work. Carpooling is very popular in larger cities; all the park and ride lots are full ALL THE TIME. The problem with rural areas is that people live so far apart that even carpooling is not feasable.
The total area of the US is 3,718,711 square miles. The total area of France is 260,558 sq. mi. Most Europeans couldn't imagine a comute of 50-75 miles a day to work every day. To try to tax Americans into submission, as the Europeans have done, would absolutely ruin our ecconomy.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Travel distance as nothing to do with fuel efficiency.
Whatever the country if you have 500 miles to do you will use less fuel using a car at 12mpg than with a car at 25mpg.
Maybe you missed this fact early in the thread?
A 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards would reduce greenhouse emissions by only about 0.5 percent, even under the most optimistic assumptions. 17
-
I call BS on that report. You could easily build a car with half the fuel consumption from the same materials as the current american cars. Switching to Diesel engines, manual transmissions or more efficient automatics, and building the cars towards low weight rather than ultimate safety would easily achieve that. The current euro cars are about there, and I have no trouble commuting 50 miles per day in one.
But as mentioned the private automobiles are a small CO2 contributor overall. Also, I don't believe that many off us will be driving private cars in 15 years, unless there's some miraculous technical breakthrough. Maybe you guys in the US will, as you have some oil reserves which might delay the effect of peak oil if taken into use. I wont blame you if you do.
-
Originally posted by mora
I call BS on that report. You could easily build a car with half the fuel consumption from the same materials as the current american cars. Switching to Diesel engines, manual transmissions or more efficient automatics, and building the cars towards low weight rather than ultimate safety would easily achieve that. The current euro cars are about there, and I have no trouble commuting 50 miles per day in one.
But as mentioned the private automobiles are a small CO2 contributor overall. Also, I don't believe that many off us will be driving private cars in 15 years, unless there's some miraculous technical breakthrough. Maybe you guys in the US will, as you have some oil reserves which might delay the effect of peak oil if taken into use. I wont blame you if you do.
With all due respect, I think I'd rather trust the judgement of a person who is a Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies rather than a computer game user.
-
Rotax
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by comparing the fuel economy of your various vehicles with the GDP of your country, but let's move on from that. I asked you for your solution to the ecological catastrophe of global warming. Your answer came in two parts, and I will give you my considered opinion of each part. 1) Increase the biomass to absorb some of the excess CO2. In other words, plant a tree, or two, or ten. Contrast this solution to Brazil, which is burning off the largest biomass concentration on earth!
Trees and plants take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen, but the problem is that it takes too long for young saplings to grow into mature trees, given the timescale of the ecological nemesis the human race will suffer if nothing is done to reduce the burning of fossil fuels stuffing the atmosphere full of greenhouse gases. I agree, the destruction of the Brazilian rainforest is a terrible thing, given what is known about its effects. 2) The oceans are the heat sink of the planet, so decrease the solar radiation striking the oceans. Place some large, thin, plastic sheets in geosynchronous orbit over the Pacific Ocean to attenuate the UV radiation. If it is still too hot, add more sheets. Getting too cold, remove some sheets. Works just like a set of venetian blinds on a window.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
A 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards would reduce greenhouse emissions by only about 0.5 percent, even under the most optimistic assumptions.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/bsflag.gif)
but the most telling thing is that beet won't answer the real point.... How much are you willing to allow the U.S. economy to shrink? - Lazs
Let me ask you a question - if we do nothing about the global warming issue, how much are you willing to see your country shrink, what with polar ice cap meltdown and rising sea levels? (Think of the effects of hurricane Katrina as small hors d'oeuvre, eg. a small serving of crudité - and the unchecked effect of global warming as a large porterhouse steak, like half a cow. That should give you a sense of proportion) Better a poorer country than no country at all? But wait - Nashwan is here with the facts. You can always rely on Nashwan for the FACTS. :) As can be seen from his figures, what is needed is a US efficiency drive. Most Europeans couldn't imagine a comute of 50-75 miles a day to work every day.
I don't agree. I used to commute 60 miles each way as recently as 2001, and many other people I knew had similar journeys.
Nashwan - do you have those carbon emission and GDP figures for Australia?
-
mora, you should design some vehicles like you say, then market them in America.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Travel distance as nothing to do with fuel efficiency.
Whatever the country if you have 500 miles to do you will use less fuel using a car at 12mpg than with a car at 25mpg.
Very, very, true, but travel distance has everything to do with fuel consumption.
-Rotax447
-
There's nothing to be designed. You could switch from a "compact" to any "small" euro car and there you have it. Marketing might be hard, as people don't seem to want to make any sacrifices in comfort, and your goverment tax policies favor gasoline over Diesel. Personally I would take the car with half the fuel cost and a bit less comfort even if I could afford the more expensive one.
Again, I don't have an anti US agenda, I don't mind you enjoying from your standard of living. The only problem is the way of thinking I'm sensing fromsome of you. If others are ready give up some of their standards of living why aren't you?
-
Originally posted by mora
The current euro cars are about there, and I have no trouble commuting 50 miles per day in one.
If you lived only a few km from work you could walk or bike to work. I do, so I am a better person, you suck as you are ruining the earth. I am a more contentious citizen of earth than beetle too.:p
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Why reduce it at all? Why just not increase US efficency levels to closer to those of other first world countries?
Dollars of GDP, per ton of carbon emitted from fossil fuels:
US $7,327
Japan $14,098
Germany $12,379
UK $14,452
France $19,954
(World's 5 largest economies, gdp from world bank, carbon emissions from Oak Ridge national laboratory)
Because it has nothing to do with manufacturing, construction, or power production efficiency. It is not because your Japanese car gets better gas mileage than my Japanese car. It is not because your Boeing aircraft with Rolls Royce engines gets better gas mileage than my Boeing aircraft with Rolls Royce engines. It is not because your Intel processor computer uses less power than my Intel processor computer. This is silly.
Here is something that I am curious about. The average car in America is driven 20,000km per year. How does that size up with European usage?
-Rotax447
-
mora, I don't think many are voluntarily giving up any standard of living anywhere else. American cars are available to most places, and the consumer decides what they want to buy.
Now, most of you guys just tax fuel very high. Is it your choice to pay the higher tax? Do you enjoy paying the high price for fuel, and is that your personal decision to sacrifice and better the world?
Like I have said before, any fuel we save with smaller vehicles, taxes or whatever, will STILL be used regardless. Fuel is finite and it will all be used and burned. There is little reason to conserve it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If you lived only a few km from work you could walk or bike to work. I do, so I am a better person, you suck as you are ruining the earth. I am a more contentious citizen of earth than beetle too.:p
Well, I only have to do it 3 times a week... Viva la Socialist job! Viva la Revolucion! On my free time I grow marijuana which binds CO2 from the atmosphere and is a solution to all worlds problems!(joke)
-
Originally posted by mora
Well, I only have to do it 3 times a week... Viva la Socialist job! Viva la Revolucion! On my free time I grow marijuana which binds CO2 from the atmosphere and is a solution to all worlds problems!(joke)
If you grow it, you probably end up unbinding that CO2, so entropy says your agricultural hobby is a net loss. You are a horrible person for not cycling to work.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
mora, I don't think many are voluntarily giving up any standard of living anywhere else. American cars are available to most places, and the consumer decides what they want to buy.
Now, most of you guys just tax fuel very high. Is it your choice to pay the higher tax? Do you enjoy paying the high price for fuel, and is that your personal decision to sacrifice and better the world?
I think I'd take the more efficient one even if there would be no tax on fuel. That is somewhat the case, as I'm able to deduct most of the fuel taxes I pay for commuting from my income taxes. I might be a rare example though, I've decided to use no more than 15% of my income on motoring.
I'm inclined to think that oil usage should be regulated, but I don't believe that taxation is the right way to do it, it's an unnecessary straine to economy. Private cars are a small CO2 contributor, but I'll still continue, as it's a subject I know something about. Western world allready has low standards for toxic emissions. If we all would agree that CO2 is harmful for the enviroment, then why couldn't we have same kind of standards for fuel consumption? Assuming of course that rip's research data is wrong, and that it would actually reduce net CO2 emissions.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Why reduce it at all? Why just not increase US efficency levels to closer to those of other first world countries?
Dollars of GDP, per ton of carbon emitted from fossil fuels:
US $7,327
Japan $14,098
Germany $12,379
UK $14,452
France $19,954
(World's 5 largest economies, gdp from world bank, carbon emissions from Oak Ridge national laboratory)
For 2002 I am showing a French GPD of $1,540,000,000,000 and CO2 emmissions of 407,000,000 metric tons. I am curious where the $19,958 comes from?
-Rotax447
-
According to the World Bank, French GDP in 2004 was $2,002,582,000,000 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
According to Oak Ridge, French carbon emissions from fossil fuels were 100,358,000 tons.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2002.tot
Granted GDP figures are for 2004 and carbon figures from 2002, but that's true for all the countries I listed (the World Bank publishes figures yearly), and the percentages have not changed much.
As soon as our travel distances are as close as those countries you mention, I think we can accompany the request.
A 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards would reduce greenhouse emissions by only about 0.5 percent, even under the most optimistic assumptions.
Rip, you seem to be taking two contrary positions here, that the US uses so much more fuel because of travel distances, but an increase in fuel efficiency only has a marginal effect on greenhouse gas emissions. They can't both be true.
The truth is, cars are only a small part of the problem. Liquid fuels make up about 40% of the US fossil fuel emissions. Remove them totally, and you still use more than the other economies I listed.
Most Europeans couldn't imagine a comute of 50-75 miles a day to work every day.
Oh, I think they could. I used to do a 150 mile round trip every day to and from work, and half my colleagues at the time were doing over 50 miles each way. From that job I went to another that saw me driving an average of 350 miles a day to get to various sites (and at times it went as high as over 2200 miles a week)
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
Here is something that I am curious about. The average car in America is driven 20,000km per year. How does that size up with European usage?
You may find this surprising, but the British average is given at around 10,000 miles = 16,000km, although it used to be 12,000. Maybe total mileage is now spread out amongst more cars....
Like I have said before, any fuel we save with smaller vehicles, taxes or whatever, will STILL be used regardless. Fuel is finite and it will all be used and burned. There is little reason to conserve it.
The reason for conservation, NUKE, is that as yet we do not have an alternative energy source. A great deal of research will be needed on bio fuels, if they are ever to replace conventional gas or diesel. By conserving fuel, we are buying time. Time for another energy source to be developed, and time for W to put in his order for plastic sheeting down at Ace Hardware. :rofl
-
Beetle, how much time do you think we can buy? I'm thinking that no matter how much you conserve, or that I conserve or that the world conserves, it's not going matter very much in the time when the fuel runs out .
Are we going to gain maybe a few years over a total of 350 years as the supplies start to dry up? Not going to make a difference.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No, I was speaking from experience. My last car was a VW Golf, as were the two before that. The first two each had a 2.8i V6 petrol engine. My average fuel consumption for those was around 27mpg overall. The last one had a 1.9 TDi engine and was an excellent allround performer. It averaged close to 48mpg in the time I had it. I think mora is right in what he says. The TDi engine is more efficient over a wider range of uses. Any doubts I had were allayed during the test drive. Even tootling around town I'd still get ~40mpg; In the V6, that would drop to less than 20. My current car is an Audi A3. I still have the link to the online spec. Check out the following table for the level of CO2 content emitted by all models in the range. You'll see that CO2 output is in direct proportion to engine size. http://www.audi.co.uk/newcars/range.jsp?section=/models/a3/a3
That table doesn't explain what the content rating is. Is that under load? Is that in the vehicles optimal load? Or what?
Same goes for your argument relies heavily on driving style and vehicle load. A smaller engine can be less efficient under load and create higher emissions.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
The numbers quoted have nothing to do with fuel efficiency. They are fossil fuels burned compared to GDP. How do you get to work straffo? How far is the commute?
217 km per day using train.
Fossil fuel used : 0
(nuclear electricy here)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Maybe you missed this fact early in the thread?
No but I prefer acting at the scale where I have influence than putting my head in the sand expecting a miracle.
Originally posted by Rotax447
Here is something that I am curious about. The average car in America is driven 20,000km per year. How does that size up with European usage?
15 000km for gazoline car
18 000km for diesel car
and 75% of our car are diesel.
-
Lets look at one more facet of data: relationship between GDP and gas production.
USA _____32.9% of world GDP 4.65% population 25% greenhouse gases
Japan____13.4%_____________2.09%__________7%
Germany___6.0%____________1.36%__________4%
Britain_____4.6%____________0.99%__________ 2%
France_____4.2%____________0.97%
China______3.7%___________20.84%_________15%
using 2000 world GDP data, and Beet's table from the first post
Seems to me the US is not all that bad at productive efficiency -- the 25% is totally misleading when viewed alone. In fact, Germany isnt all that much better (1.5 GDP:gas ratio for germany, 1.32 for USA)
The REAL message in this comparison is not that the US is evil, but that the worst offenders and the major contributors to the problem come from low efficiency producers in the thrid world. Even a successful emerging Thrid World economy like China's can only muster a 0.15 RATIO -- so the US is almost 10x better at protecting the environment than China.
Just look at the industrialized numbers above -- roughly 65% of the world GDP coming from 31% of the population and making 55% of the gasses.
So, 69% of the world population (ie everyone not on the chart) makes 35% of the GDP while pumping out 45% of the gasses. This segment also includes many industrialised nations not on the list of 5 above -- but even so, the overall ratio 0.77, about half of the "evil" US's.
Beet, every time green stuff comes up you rant about american SUVs. Cars are a minimal part of the problem, and the SUV component (while useful to green and liberal demogogues as concrete images for unimaginative masses) are microscopically small contibutors. Most greenhouse gases come from industry and electrical production, not from vehicles.
edit -- sorry -- missed the vehicle vs industry emissions issue being addressed when i first skimmed thru the thread
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
That table doesn't explain what the content rating is. Is that under load? Is that in the vehicles optimal load? Or what?
I'm pretty sure that it's calculated from the "combined euro fuel consumption cycle". Definately not under optimal load. Under optimal load the difference between Diesel and Otto would be smaller.
-
Simaril ratio mean nothing when the comparaison is about volume.
Except it's a very nice decoy.
-
Originally posted by straffo
217 km per day using train.
Fossil fuel used : 0
(nuclear electricy here)
Exactly. Where I live there is no train and having one would be ecconomically unfeasable; there aren't enough people to ride it. The same goes for 90% of the continental US. We aren't stacked on top of each other like you are; everything is very spread out. I suppose we should all live in company towns right outside the gates of our places of employment, but that would be harder than getting us to give up our guns...
By the way straffo, what does France do with it's spent nuclear fuel?
-
I don't know how the French do, but this is how we do it:
(http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/images/e_kapslait.gif)
http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/
click final disposal
Another option is reprocessing, which is kinda expensive but well worth it if there's no other option.
We are about to increase our nuclear power output around 50% when the newest plant is completed, and another one of the same size is in the works to bring the total number to 6 and doubling the current output. I'm glad my goverment is doing at least something right.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
By the way straffo, what does France do with it's spent nuclear fuel?
It's stored at La Hague or Marcoule.
IMO it's a better place than the athmosphere :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Simaril ratio mean nothing when the comparaison is about volume.
Except it's a very nice decoy.
I guess i'm missing your point, or you're missing mine.
I'm thinking that energy is used in producing things, so more energy would naturally be used by the US if it produced more. The simplist way to take production into account seems to be the ratio.
I suspect that the assumptions of GreenThink almost require the US to be demonized... and having to allow for the fact that the US is the greatest contributor to the world economy may be a little threatening to common EU wisdom.....
But I might be wrong. How exactly is is decoy, though, otherwise?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
That table doesn't explain what the content rating is. Is that under load? Is that in the vehicles optimal load? Or what?
Same goes for your argument relies heavily on driving style and vehicle load. A smaller engine can be less efficient under load and create higher emissions.
Vulcan,
In recent times, vehicles in the UK have paid a variable amount of road tax based on their pollution output. The regulatory body managing driver and vehicle registration is DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority). For the purpose of rating vehicles according the amount they pollute, every vehicle has to undergo a Type Approval Rating, in which the vehicle's pollution level is measured under a variety of different driving conditions, to arrive at the overall figure, which is the one quoted in that table. What the figure actually means is grammes of CO2 per kilometre travelled. Every car is subject to the same test, so it's a level playing field. For more information on the calculation of the Graduated Vehicle Excise Duty, see the DVLA's FAQ page: http://www.dvla.gov.uk/gved/question.htm
And... like I said, you'll see that the CO2 output value is in direct proportion to engine size.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/xmas.gif)
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I guess i'm missing your point, or you're missing mine.
I'm thinking that energy is used in producing things, so more energy would naturally be used by the US if it produced more. The simplist way to take production into account seems to be the ratio.
I suspect that the assumptions of GreenThink almost require the US to be demonized... and having to allow for the fact that the US is the greatest contributor to the world economy may be a little threatening to common EU wisdom.....
But I might be wrong. How exactly is it a decoy, though, otherwise?
To paraphrase a previous post of mine, the way the rest of the world sees it, they don't care that we produce 30% of the worlds goods and 25% of the gases. They see us as 5% of the worlds population and therefore should produce no more than 5% of the worlds gases. I see it as an attempt to globalize, standardize, and socialize the worlds ecconomy.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
We aren't stacked on top of each other like you are; everything is very spread out.
Sure, like these houses in the Fillmore district of San Francisco - America's most desirable and therefore most expensive place to live.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/fillmore.jpg)
-
Please, please tell me you consider that post a joke Beetle -- because otherwise you've showed yourself to be a mere sophist, not a debater.
Just in case, I'll state the obvious: not everyone lives on that street, and just because SOME people will pay a lot to live there doesnt mean MOST americans have any interest in that location.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Sure, like these houses in the Fillmore district of San Francisco - America's most desirable and therefore most expensive place to live.
Everyone knows there are congested areas in the US. The reality is however, that the vast majority looks like this-
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/52/snow%202.JPG)
The view from my livingroom window.
-
Not all euro countries have a higher population density than the US. Finland has a population density of 40 per square mile, and the US has 76 per square mile. The spread of the population doesn't actually raise energy consumption that much. The cool weather is a much bigger factor. We do have a well working public transportation system, so you can't really say that it's impossible to do. It just needs to be better controlled and more punctual than Greyhound. Again, it wouldn't do that much good if everyone would switch to public transportation. The effect on total CO2 emissions would likely be around 5%.
-
Beetle;
Wonder of wonders, I agree with you again. Placing solar attenuators in orbit is BS, because they would probably work too well! The largest contributor to global warming is not CO2, methane, or water vapor; it is UV radiation from the sun. Block that, and we would have icebergs forming in the South Pacific. You have passed the second reality check I threw at you with flying colors:-)
Moving back to the first reality check. Pick up your pen and paper. Write to your MP and EU representative, and tell them to stop this nonsense of adding ethanol to gasoline. If they what to subsidize European farmers, or Brazilian farmers, fine, but at least tell them to call it what it is. Take the corn, sugar, or whatever the crop de jour is, and ship it to Africa where it can at least feed people. If you want to do something really useful, lobby your representatives to put pressure on the Brazilians.
Do not expect Americans to lower their standard of living over a little global warming. When England starts slipping back into the azure waves, well, maybe we will think about it. For now, the biomass (North American biomass alone increased by 30% since 1950) knows (The Gaia effect?) that there is surplus CO2 in the atmosphere, and the biomass is growing like a weed to absorb it.
No one knows when, or even if, the Greenland or Antarctic ice shelves will melt. Nature has this funny way of regulating itself. Even if they do melt, it would not be the first time, and it sure won't be the last. Personally, I am far more concerned about being hit by a random chunk of rock, or ice, whizzing through the solar system.
All in all this has been a good thread with a lot of useful information. Perhaps your care to start one on religion or politics next:-)
-
Originally posted by Skilless
The view from my livingroom window.
Nice truck! Is it yours?
-
Originally posted by mora
Nice truck! Is it yours?
It's an old pos we use to haul brush in the summer and plow snow in the winter (used to, hireit done now).
-
Beetle;
Since you started this thread, I guess it is only fitting that I give you the news that will render this thread, moot. First, let me explain to you how physics works. You presented me with a problem. You have this ball which is absorbing short wavelength UV radiation. As the ball heats up, it will emit long wavelength IR, radiation. At some point, the ball will reach a state of thermal equilibrium, and the temperature of the ball will remain constant.
Then, you threw a sabot (sorry straffo:-) into the works. The ball is surrounded by an ever increasing CO2 gas, which is blocking a portion of the IR energy. The surface of the ball is heating up. What to do?
Physics 101. Build a small shack or shanty in your backyard. Place glass panels on the roof. Glass will pass UV radiation, and block IR radiation, so it acts in exactly the same manner as atmospheric CO2. Put one thermometer on the wall inside the shack, and one thermometer on the wall outside the shack. Wait a few hours after the sun comes and read the thermometers. You notice that the temperature inside the shack is higher than the temperature outside the shack. What to do?
Remove a few of the glass panels on the roof . Wait a few hours and take another reading. Great! The temperature in the shack has come down. You now realize that if you reduce the CO2 gas surrounding the ball, you will achieve the same effect. But wait, we are doing physics, not politics here remember, so is this the only way to lower the temperature?
You have noticed that at night, the temperature between the inside, and the outside of the shack is the same. The next day you replace glass panels on the roof, wait a few hours after the sun comes up, and take another reading. Sure enough, it is hotter inside the shack than outside the shack. You place a large, picnic, umbrella over the roof, wait and few more hours, and take another reading. Great! The temperature in the shack has once again come down.
I gave you one solution, plant more trees to absorb the CO2. You said there was not enough time for the saplings to mature. Yet, you claim that if the Americans simply cut their greenhouse emissions, we can save the planet. Is that claim based on physics, or on politics?
I gave you another solution. Block some of the incoming UV radiation. This is perfectly valid physics, but for someone with an agenda, it is really bad politics. Your response was to laugh and laugh, and then float a a large BS sign. I wonder why Beetle ... physics, or politics? My concern was that it would cool down the planet too much ... and what was the cause for your hysteria?
Let me give you some real good physics here Beetle. Place a 1000km concave Fresnel lens, that is a few mm thick, at the Lagrange 1 point between the earth and the sun. Spin the lens to keep it rigid. Every twenty days or so, give it a slight nudge, since the solar wind will tend to push it away from L1. NASA engineers said it will cost about ten billion dollars to build, and another ten billion to maintain over the life of the lens. The reduction in solar energy will be about 1%, more than enough to offset any increase in CO2 emissions. Yes, Beetle, you can google this one.
I don't know what scam you Greens are going to dream up next, but I am sure it will be fun to watch. As far a global warming goes, well, as your lawyer friend Bill Clinton would say, it is moot. If anyone asks me about global warming, I am going to point to the Fresnel lens. Feeling a bit warm, then take ten billion Euros out of your economy, and build the lens. Meanwhile, leave my economy, and my SUV alone.
Adios Beetle, see you in the next thread:-)
-Rotax447
-
Thanks, Rotax, and welcome to the OC. You're a delightful addition to the mix.
-
I dunno how beetle didn't see that one coming.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Thanks, Rotax, and welcome to the OC. You're a delightful addition to the mix.
Thank you sir, I do enjoy the company.
-Rotax447
p.s.
Yes Beetle , that includes you:-)
-
Is that after the same Rotax that makes engines for Aprilia, or is it a different company?
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
I am going to point to the Fresnel lens. Feeling a bit warm, then take ten billion Euros out of your economy, and build the lens.
sorry but LOL LOL, do you know how large this fresnel lens would be?
i doubt any company today on earth can build such a huge thing.
Its simply not possible, maybe in some dreams.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
sorry but LOL LOL, do you know how large this fresnel lens would be?
i doubt any company today on earth can build such a huge thing.
Its simply not possible, maybe in some dreams.
Yes, I know how large it would be, and if you had bothered to read the post, you would know too. Guess what, it does not need to be built in one really, really, big piece. It can be built using a marvelous trick of American engineering called ... segments!
And you are so, so right. No company in Europe could build it, because the Greens would burn the plant down to the ground
Sigh, I can see already that once again, the American are going to have to save the European oh so toasty little behinds, by building it ourselves.
Oh yes, Thomas Edison had a dream; he was an American. The Wright brothers had a dream; they were Americans. Robert Noyce had a dream, and you are typing this message on his dream; he was an American. It must be really sad to live in countries where people no longer dream.
BTW, are those really LOL coming from our Green cousins; sounds an awful lot like SOS to me.
-
Originally posted by moot
Is that after the same Rotax that makes engines for Aprilia, or is it a different company?
Kind of an inside joke among my squaddies. The 447 is the smallest engine that Rotax currently builds. I always said that when we received the P-47N, I would change it to Rotax912.
-
ROFL Rotax- all that wall of text, from a silly grin. :rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
ROFL Rotax- all that wall of text, from a silly grin. :rofl
They say ignorance is bliss, Beetle, I guess that is true. I think it is a pity that you can't comprehend what that text means.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
ROFL Rotax- all that wall of text, from a silly grin. :rofl
Beetle, I read your great wall of china text in this thread. However, I saw the angle with which were gonna take it. Hook, Line and Sinker.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
They say ignorance is bliss, Beetle, I guess that is true.
I agree entirely, so why not just go on believing that global warming is a myth? Go prattling on about GDP. Pretend that a car that consumes twice as much fuel as the version with the small engine only causes the same amount of greenhouse gas. Dig a hole in the sand and shove your head in good and deep...
Whatever anyone feels about anything that's been said in this thread or how it's been presented, the facts remain unchanged. There IS a global warming problem, it IS caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and the US emits 25% of the world total. And, as Nashwan has kindly pointed out, the US greenhouse gas output per GDP is about twice that of the world's next four leading economies. Slice it, dice it, an onion is still an onion.
The attitudes here remind me of the Elizabeth Kübler-Ross analysis of emotions exhibited by the terminally ill. The five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.
Stage 1, Denial
Hey, not us. We're not the problem. We see no reason to conserve fossil fuels. Burning up all remaining oil stocks would be a good thing! Cutting back would harm our economy. No way, man. We don't want that Kyoto nonsense in our back yard!
Stage 2, Anger
How dare you accuse the US of being the country with the largest greenhouse gas output! How dare you suggest that I should give up my SUV! How dare you confront us with the facts!
Stage 3, Bargaining
OK, maybe there is a problem. Maybe we should do something, but we don't want to have to cut back on burning hydrocarbons. We still want high GDP. We still want WalMart and JCPenney. Well maybe if we dream about the answer that would help? Maybe if we get some plastic sheeting and put it in space, then maybe just cut back on fossil fuel burning 10%? I'm sure there's a deal that can be struck out of this mess. And my idea of plastic sheeting/fresnel lens is soooooo plausible. I saw it done in a sci-fi movie set in 2450, so it must be possible...
I don't think we're quite at Stage 4, Depression, just yet. But like Ghost, I want to know how big this plastic sheeting arrangement is going to be. Doesn't sound like anything that's going to happen in the next 100 years, and by then it will be too late.
-
When nailed to the wall and backed in a corner, then bafffle them with your BS, eh Beet? :)
-
Again - for the benefit of Jackal -
Whatever anyone feels about anything that's been said in this thread or how it's been presented, the facts remain unchanged. There IS a global warming problem, it IS caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and the US emits 25% of the world total. And, as Nashwan has kindly pointed out, the US greenhouse gas output per GDP is about twice that of the world's next four leading economies. Slice it, dice it, an onion is still an onion.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I agree entirely, so why not just go on believing that global warming is a myth? Go prattling on about GDP. Pretend that a car that consumes twice as much fuel as the version with the small engine only causes the same amount of greenhouse gas. Dig a hole in the sand and shove your head in good and deep...
Whatever anyone feels about anything that's been said in this thread or how it's been presented, the facts remain unchanged. There IS a global warming problem, it IS caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and the US emits 25% of the world total. And, as Nashwan has kindly pointed out, the US greenhouse gas output per GDP is about twice that of the world's next four leading economies. Slice it, dice it, an onion is still an onion.
The attitudes here remind me of the Elizabeth K�bler-Ross analysis of emotions exhibited by the terminally ill. The five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.
Stage 1, Denial
Hey, not us. We're not the problem. We see no reason to conserve fossil fuels. Burning up all remaining oil stocks would be a good thing! Cutting back would harm our economy. No way, man. We don't want that Kyoto nonsense in our back yard!
Stage 2, Anger
How dare you accuse the US of being the country with the largest greenhouse gas output! How dare you suggest that I should give up my SUV! How dare you confront us with the facts!
Stage 3, Bargaining
OK, maybe there is a problem. Maybe we should do something, but we don't want to have to cut back on burning hydrocarbons. We still want high GDP. We still want WalMart and JCPenney. Well maybe if we dream about the answer that would help? Maybe if we get some plastic sheeting and put it in space, then maybe just cut back on fossil fuel burning 10%? I'm sure there's a deal that can be struck out of this mess. And my idea of plastic sheeting/fresnel lens is soooooo plausible. I saw it done in a sci-fi movie set in 2450, so it must be possible...
I don't think we're quite at Stage 4, Depression, just yet. But like Ghost, I want to know how big this plastic sheeting arrangement is going to be. Doesn't sound like anything that's going to happen in the next 100 years, and by then it will be too late.
Beetle, a word of friendly advice. Your posts are coming dangerously close to the "stupid is as stupid does" standard.
In terms that any American would understand, the lens would require the equivalent of about eight million rolls of Saran Wrap.
-
there are some simple solutions... the type of products involved in GNP are part of the problem.. the U.S. has a very effective and strict pollution program...
But.. we produce (farm a lot of land) a lot of food.... we should stop producing food except for what can be used as biodiesel and plant all the farmland in forests...
No more tree cutting should be allowed around the world.
No airline or cruise ship travel should be allowed.
that would pretty much solve the problem. if... there really is a problem.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
Beetle, a word of friendly advice. Your posts are coming dangerously close to the "stupid is as stupid does" standard.
LOL! You're talking about putting 8 million rolls worth of Saran Wrap in outer space, and then sending guys up to adjust it, and you claim that I'm the one who sounds stupid.
The astronauts will need to divide it into segments, like you said, so tell me one thing: Will the space vehicle that deploys this work of ingenuity have a serrated blade running around the cargo door?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
LOL! You're talking about putting 8 million rolls worth of Saran Wrap in outer space, and then sending guys up to adjust it, and you claim that I'm the one who sounds stupid.
The astronauts will need to divide it into segments, like you said, so tell me one thing: Will the space vehicle that deploys this work of ingenuity have a serrated blade running around the cargo door?
:rofl
If that is the way you think NASA engineers would build it, then yes, beetle, you are stupid.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Again - for the benefit of Jackal -
Whatever anyone feels about anything that's been said in this thread or how it's been presented, the facts remain unchanged. There IS a global warming problem, it IS caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and the US emits 25% of the world total. And, as Nashwan has kindly pointed out, the US greenhouse gas output per GDP is about twice that of the world's next four leading economies. Slice it, dice it, an onion is still an onion.
And yet again for the benefit of Beetle....................... ................
When nailed to the wall and backed in a corner, then bafffle them with your BS, eh Beet?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
And yet again for the benefit of Beetle....................... ................
When nailed to the wall and backed in a corner, then bafffle them with your BS, eh Beet?
Global warming scientists= "Let`s grab some quick cash out of this new doomsday theory"
The climate on earth has been a constant changing thing since recorded history and I suspect it will conrinue that way until the earth no longer exists.
And yes , everything humans do on a large scale basis effects not only climate, but just about every aspect of nature. If the existance of a living, breathing, ever changing planet frightens you into such a frenzy, why not just end the horror for yourself now? That would be one less whining *** doomsdayer breathing perfectly good air that I might have a need for at some point. :)
I think pretty much anyone that has been on these boards for more than a week knows why you started the thread to begin with. Another "Evil U.S. Empire" thread. Well Ho Hum, yawn. Why don`t ya look up Skylilter. You could happily be jealous of the U.S. and our way of life together.
Yes the folks here in the U.S. have a heartbeat over 30 and are a very active, industrious mobile society. We also feed, clothe , support and protect a good bit of this planet. Deal with it.
-
Nope, I'm not nailed in a corner, tied to a tree or anything like that. The subject of this thread is about global warming, and US greenhouse gas emissions, which far exceed those of other leading economies. Mash tried to say the list I provided was BS, and Nashwan has since provided further proof that it isn't. And, in case you hadn't noticed, the problem has been discussed at a conference in Montreal just last week, with delegates from a multitude of countries present, the Kyoto treaty having been signed by 157 different countries. If global warming was a cyclic thing, why didn't they also have conferences in 1950, 1900, 1850, 1800...?
I can see why your handle is Jackall - because you know Jack all about anything. Anything knowledge you do have is out of date, but you keep stepping in it by trying to hold sway about matters you know nothing about, like various countries (which you have never visited eg. Britain, Singapore), certain books (which you have never read - eg. the Cynthia Lennon book) the British Monarchy (of which your perception is based on the status quo that might have existed in the 15th century) and now global warming, whose existence you deny. Ah wait, I can see why you don't believe it - it's because 100 years ago (which is current by your standards) global warming wasn't a problem.
But go ahead - bring up your goal line defence, like you always do when you're out of steam( which is often), and remind everyone about my ladyfriend. You know Jack all about her too, but it suits you to keep bringing it up because it's old information, which is all you ever have. Guess you never did catch the latest. It's here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=162884) . Go ahead and read it...
... on second thoughts, don't bother. Making do with incomplete, inaccurate and out of date information is more your style. Why change the habits of a lifetime?
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/xmas.gif)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Again - for the benefit of Jackal -
Whatever anyone feels about anything that's been said in this thread or how it's been presented, the facts remain unchanged. There IS a global warming problem, it IS caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and the US emits 25% of the world total. And, as Nashwan has kindly pointed out, the US greenhouse gas output per GDP is about twice that of the world's next four leading economies. Slice it, dice it, an onion is still an onion.
Global warming by human caused greenhouse gas emmissions is inference, accepted by many but refuted by other climatologists. Many respected scientists believe at least part of the current trend is cyclical. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions do not explain the receeding of polar caps on Mars. Jupiter and Pluto are thought to be experencing a warming trend too.
While the majority of scientists do believe that human caused greenhouse gas is a leading contributor, science is not a democracy. It is presently a theory (a strong one to be sure) but it is not yet a fact.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
and the US emits 25% of the world total.
Prove it, the only statistic saying this has been a "guess". Show me hard figures that are not guesswork.
-
The percentage produced (a largely unproven statistic) means little, to nothing, without taking into account the amount consumed as well.
If you are really worried about CO2, then you should be beating up the folks who are destroying the greatest resource the world has in consuming CO2. The rain forests.
The amount of CO2 the world produced was easily handled by the rain forests when they were unmolested by man.
-
What Skuzzy said is absolutely correct. If Kyoto had been serious, they would have asked 157 nations (sans Brazil) to make an annual contribution from their GDP, to boost the Brazilian economy. This, to prevent the further destruction of the rainforest. I would have gone along with something like that. The rain forests are the lungs, and the pharmacological laboratory of this planet. If we want good stewardship of the rainforest, we had best be prepared to pay the steward.
We are all paying subsidies to Arab nations for their oil. It it madness not to pay subsidies to Brazil, for removing the CO2 produced by burning that oil.
-
I think that people are noticing that beet has an agenda that has little or nothing to do with global warming...
It has been shown that cutting our vehicle greenhouse gasses in half would have little or no overall effect yet... that is what he is asking for... worse... he would have no qualms about renting a 747 for himself and a friend to go on an extended vacation if the price were cheap enough... He doesn't care how much vacation travel pollutes.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
the water vapour and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases and are therefore responsible for global warming.
Well if you would just quit breathing then part of the world's problems would be solved.
I put just as much stock into global warming as I did to the "Y2K bug" that was going to bring the world to a crashing halt....and we all know how accurate that one was. :rolleyes:
-
"...the old days of "Have a Coke and a Smile" are gone for a while. You can't teach the world to sing in harmony when you have someone that wants to shove a bayonette up your privates just because he hates the lifestyle we have." -Goth"
GAWD thats a funny quote!
:rofl
-
I would just like to point out that building a lens / serran wrapping the earth wouldn't work. There are constant meteors ranging from microscopic up passing through the earth's atmosphere.
Most are burned up by friction.
But this lens of yours wouldn't be able to stand up to the meteors.
One decent size one and you'd spiderweb the thing.
-
Naw....we would send Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck and a band of roguish space cowboys up there to patrol and blow up any asteroids heading toward the lens.
-
Wow. Another "America is the great, self-absorbed Satan" thread. How creative. How terribly underinformed. How loaded with myth, junk science and critical missing information. Just enough info to do some damage...and all started by an absolutlely reliable source...a newspaper!! Excellent...newspapers are never wrong, biased or opinionated.
Is this some kind of special hobby? Or just an agenda that really seems out of place on a Game BBS. Does no one care to tend their own national backyards before slinging mud? I'm sure all these unprovoked verbal attacks..err, sorry..'discussions' on America are justified by the fact that everywhere else in the world is gleaming, perfect and without flaw, pollution, injustice or harsh language. And China and India are models of environmental concern by comparison to us Ameripigs.
Good Lord, but I'm tired of all this self-serving dreck. If you're worried about greenhouse gasses and global warming, make a personal statement first. Stop driving...ever...and hold your breath...too much CO2.
For Pete's sake already...:huh
-
Originally posted by NUKE
There is no reason to conserve fuel or try to limit it's use through taxes. Any fuel we save now will be burned later, having ZERO effect on the gross emmisions of gases and ZERO effect on the finite amount of fuel in this world.
you forgot one important variable.
time.
It makes huge effect, if 6 bil. people burn 2l/oil/day or 1l/oil/day
since we all know that math is high sience in US, here are few more hints.
2:1=2 it means, that we can use it 2x longer and thus cut emmisions by 50% eatch year.
Its so simple ... like a leasing of your car. How could you say sutch BS ?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
He doesn't care how much vacation travel pollutes.
lazs
Come on, Lazs - be fair. All I said was I was going to do a one-week trip on the Oxford canal - and use one tank of diesel doing it. I have absolutely no plans to charter a 747. Prove it, the only statistic saying this has been a "guess". Show me hard figures that are not guesswork. - Vulcan
Refer to Nashwan's posts further up ^^
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Nope, I'm not nailed in a corner, tied to a tree or anything like that. The subject of this thread is about global warming, and US greenhouse gas emissions, which far exceed those of other leading economies. Mash tried to say the list I provided was BS, and Nashwan has since provided further proof that it isn't. And, in case you hadn't noticed, the problem has been discussed at a conference in Montreal just last week, with delegates from a multitude of countries present, the Kyoto treaty having been signed by 157 different countries. If global warming was a cyclic thing, why didn't they also have conferences in 1950, 1900, 1850, 1800...?
I can see why your handle is Jackall - because you know Jack all about anything. Anything knowledge you do have is out of date, but you keep stepping in it by trying to hold sway about matters you know nothing about, like various countries (which you have never visited eg. Britain, Singapore), certain books (which you have never read - eg. the Cynthia Lennon book) the British Monarchy (of which your perception is based on the status quo that might have existed in the 15th century) and now global warming, whose existence you deny. Ah wait, I can see why you don't believe it - it's because 100 years ago (which is current by your standards) global warming wasn't a problem.
But go ahead - bring up your goal line defence, like you always do when you're out of steam( which is often), and remind everyone about my ladyfriend. You know Jack all about her too, but it suits you to keep bringing it up because it's old information, which is all you ever have. Guess you never did catch the latest. It's here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=162884) . Go ahead and read it...
... on second thoughts, don't bother. Making do with incomplete, inaccurate and out of date information is more your style. Why change the habits of a lifetime?
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/xmas.gif)
Gosh, I`m honored that you proved my point so well Beetle. When cornered, throw up a wall of text. Sort of like a smoke screen.
Me out of steam? I haven`t even stoked the boiler yet. No need to when dealing with one of your "Evil U.S. empire" threads. They are all alike. You put up something and thinly veil it, then you can`t stand it when nobody takes the bait, so you have a taste yourself, then spend a week trying to get the hook out of your own butt. You are rambling on about global warming and you`re saying that I`m out of date. Priceless. Just because you happen to stumble on some theoretical info and noticed it had something included that you could use to prove your never ending envy for the U.S. certainly doesn`t make it accurate or up to date. As a matter of fact global warming is totaly theoretical according to a lot of in the know people. Me? I could care less one way or the other until it is proven and then there will allready be a solution or won`t be. If there is a solution to it, it will be taken care of. If not, everyone will be dead. No worries either way.
No Beetle I didn`t miss the "latest". Matter of fact I still LMAO everytime I think of it. Did you really think you could pass that off? Brilliant. :rofl
Oh yea....and once again , I have no desire to go to Britain. Never have, never will. Boredom is..........well boring. You claim to have been to Singapore. It`s sort of funny that you know so little about the place, but beleive because you happned to visit there you are an authority.
On Lennon`s old lady`s book . Nope, never read it, never will. I had as soon drive a nail through my hand. What I said was to the effect that first wives are not usualy an unbiased opinion. Guess that went over your head, huh?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Gosh, I`m honored that you proved my point so well Beetle. When cornered, throw up a wall of text.
Rrrriiiight - 4 paragraphs is a wall of text. In your book. Explains why you are so ill-informed. :aok
Toodle Pip
-
Originally posted by lada
you forgot one important variable.
time.
It makes huge effect, if 6 bil. people burn 2l/oil/day or 1l/oil/day
since we all know that math is high sience in US, here are few more hints.
2:1=2 it means, that we can use it 2x longer and thus cut emmisions by 50% eatch year.
Its so simple ... like a leasing of your car. How could you say sutch BS ?
Sure, if the entire world cut it's fuel consumption in half, then it would last twice as long. Unfortunatley we are never going to cut back use anywhere close to that figure. In fgact the world is steadily using more and more fuel as countries develop and they are not going to stop using more and more fuel.
And have you ever thought about how much time we have left until the fuel production begins to decline (not run out) to the point that less will be used anyway, with no other input or conservation from man. Increasing demand and declining supply will regulate it's use, it's like magic!
What do we have, 100-300 years of fuel left? Then we wont have to worry about the greenhouse gases, problem solved. How much damage can we do to the earth in 300 years? It's not even proven that we are doing much damage at all anyway, but after about 300 years, it won't be an issue.
So why worry about it if we are not going to buy time anyway? It's impossible. Any fuel will be used as fast as it can be pumped until its gone. If I save in America, then some Chinese guy will make up for it and use it anyway.
-
Beetle, some day off in the future as the earth's fuel runs dry, do you think it will have made a difference that you paid high taxes and drove a turbo diesel? :lol
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Rrrriiiight - 4 paragraphs is a wall of text. In your book. Explains why you are so ill-informed. :aok
Toodle Pip
Hehe! Informed just enough to know when someone is trying to pass BS off as instant pudding.
-
Well jackal, no need for you to read any books at all. Or just read the ones that tell you what you want to hear. "Global warming is a myth! - La la la la la...." "Cars that get 5-6mpg are cool!!!"
-
Just out of curousity Professor Beetle. What it is ,exactly, that you, personaly are doing in your noble fight against global warming?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
ROFL Rotax- all that wall of text, from a silly grin. :rofl
8 paragraphs, 683 words is a wall of text.... check
Originally posted by beet1e
Rrrriiiight - 4 paragraphs is a wall of text. In your book. Explains why you are so ill-informed.
Toodle Pip
4 paragraphs, 330 words is not a wall of text.... check
Somewhere between these two parameters lies the edge.
-
Slowly but surely gaining the hearts and minds of his opposition.
-
Hmmmmmm..... a pause in the fight for the just.
He must be on the phone with Skylilter working out the plans for the crusade. :)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I would just like to point out that building a lens / serran wrapping the earth wouldn't work. There are constant meteors ranging from microscopic up passing through the earth's atmosphere.
Most are burned up by friction.
But this lens of yours wouldn't be able to stand up to the meteors.
One decent size one and you'd spiderweb the thing.
Good point, and that is why you would not place a very large lens in near earth orbit. It would be placed at Lagrange 1, and out there in deep space, there is really nothing but, space.
In any case it can't crack. It is beyond our technology to manufacture a rigid lens of this size, and even if we could, it would offer no advantage over using a flexible substance.
BTW, this lens is not my idea. I only have a BS in physics. For the really good ideas in physics, you need a PhD.
If you want more information, contact Dr. Gregory Benford ... http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/benford.html
I am sure he would be interested in hearing your thoughts, ideas, and any constructive criticism you may have:aok
-
Originally posted by sling322
Naw....we would send Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck and a band of roguish space cowboys up there to patrol and blow up any asteroids heading toward the lens.
Hey Sling, could you save a seat for Beetle? He is our resident expert in orbital Saran Wrap repair and construction :rofl
-
BTW, does anyone remember the original point of this thread?
Oh yes, cutting US energy consumption ... and what was that final number?
-
I think that all of the countries that each produce at least 35% of the world's GWP (gross world procuct) should have a meeting on global warming.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I guess i'm missing your point, or you're missing mine.
I'm thinking that energy is used in producing things, so more energy would naturally be used by the US if it produced more. The simplist way to take production into account seems to be the ratio.
I suspect that the assumptions of GreenThink almost require the US to be demonized... and having to allow for the fact that the US is the greatest contributor to the world economy may be a little threatening to common EU wisdom.....
But I might be wrong. How exactly is is decoy, though, otherwise?
GDP is not a measure of goods produced: qv Wal-Mart - they don't produce goods, they resell them (a lot of the goods are produced in South America, Bangladesh, China). Yet their total goes toward the US GDP. Citigroup are a bank - goods produced? None. Yet they account for a chunk of the US GDP too.
I own tons of stuff made in China, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia heck even stuff made in Europe (and some of the Asian stuff even has US brand names on it).
Casting my eye over all the stuff I own, I have a couple of books, and a couple of CDs & DVDs actually claiming to be made in the US (a lot of US discs are made in Canada it seems). I have lots of software made in the US - but nothing much physical. And I wonder whether the CD/DVDs the software and movies are on and the packs they're in were really made in the US. Even the coca-cola on sale here is made in Hong Kong (I wonder if those profits count towards the US GDP). I also have a GE microwave (a credit card freebie) which may or may not be US made. The digital clock gains about 10 minutes a week, so maybe it is US made. ;)
Surely a third of my stuff should be from the US, if GDP were a measure of goods produced... especially as Hong Kong is a net importer from the US.
Looking at the US import /export balance, the US imports almost twice what it exports. Which is odd: why would 5% of the world's population producing 30% of all the world's goods need to import almost twice as much, in cash terms as they exported? Why would China with a measly 3.7% of the world's GDP have just surpassed the US to become world leader in information and communications technology goods exports?
GDP is no measure the amount of goods produced at all, just the amount of money. Which may be why it always uses money as the unit.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
8 paragraphs, 683 words is a wall of text.... check
4 paragraphs, 330 words is not a wall of text.... check
Somewhere between these two parameters lies the edge.
The keyword is "proportion" My 4 paragraphs, 330 words was in reply to Jack-all's 227 words spanning two separate posts. Rotax's 8 paragraphs, 683 words was in response to a silly grin!
Beetle, some day off in the future as the earth's fuel runs dry, do you think it will have made a difference that you paid high taxes and drove a turbo diesel?
Yes, it will have made a difference. By the time I'm ready to quit driving I'll have saved around £45,000 in road fuel costs at current prices, and that's a lot of fuel - and money - not to mention lower capital costs and lower insurance costs than if I'd carried on driving the sort of cars I had up until 2003. Obviously ONE person changing their habits is not going to make a whole lot of difference, the point being that the trend, being driven by higher fuel prices and vast improvements in fuel efficient engines, has been adopted by millions. As for the tax structure, Britain has it wrong. Countries like Austria and Italy have it right, with 60% of cars having fuel efficient TDi engines.
As for what I do personally - I don't run the heat all night - I'd get too hot! Road fuel I've talked about, and sometime in the near future I'll be replacing my heating boiler and getting the new style "condensing boiler". (The old type emits a lot of CO2 and water vapour) The condensing boilers work as their name suggests by condensing the water vapour. I believe that this exhaust is goes into the ground but don't have exact details today. In Britain as of next year, all new heating boilers must be condensing boilers.
On a much larger scale, the same principle is to be applied to the next generation of fossil fuel burning power stations. Delegates from 180 countries met in Montreal last week to discuss climate change, where technology for the new type of power station was introduced. Here is a diagram showing how it works.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/12/08/wenviro08.jpg)
I've reproduced the newspaper article below, with some key sections in red. Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/08/wenviro08.xml
Fossil fuels will still be generating most global electricity at the end of this century, but new technology will be pumping the carbon emissions underground, an energy expert forecast yesterday.
Mark Jaccard told the climate change conference of 180 countries in Montreal that the cost of new clean coal power stations was likely to be roughly the same as nuclear or renewable energy, but more publicly acceptable.
Carbon capture
Britain has launched an energy review that will examine such carbon capture, and Gordon Brown has announced a partnership with Norway to look into pumping carbon dioxide from power stations into North Sea oil wells.
However, the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), which has released a report on carbon capture and storage, says the new technology is expensive and will never be taken up using voluntary measures alone - as Washington has advocated in talks on global warming.
Prof Jaccard told The Daily Telegraph: "If humanity is serious about huge carbon emission cuts this century, zero-emission fossil fuels will dominate nuclear, renewables and energy efficiency."
He has worked out that Britain would need not only to replace its existing nuclear power stations but to double their number if it were to generate enough electricity and to fuel its transport - whether by charging electric cars or by making hydrogen or biofuels - by nuclear means alone.
He said: "It is one thing to build a nuclear power plant on an existing site, but imagine building 15 new ones."
In his book, Sustainable Fossil Fuels - the Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy, Prof Jaccard takes into account the risks to nuclear power plants from terrorism before concluding that 60 per cent of the world's power will still come from fossil fuels at the end of the 21st century, compared with 85 per cent today.
The IPCC, the world's leading body on climate change research, says government intervention in the market would be a vital factor.
Bert Metz, the Dutch co-chairman of the IPCC's working group on mitigation, said carbon-capture technology would not come into widespread use without a trading system that placed value on the saved carbon - such as the Kyoto treaty set up - or other forms of government regulation that President George W Bush has rejected as damaging to the US economy.
"Without clear incentives, there will not be an application of this technology," said Dr Metz.
Clean coal technologies are already viable in Norway because the oil and gas industries pay a carbon tax.
The IPCC report says the most developed way of burying carbon dioxide is in the geological strata where the fossil fuels are found.
The past year has been the costliest ever for weather-related natural disasters, the insurance industry told the conference yesterday.
Preliminary estimates by the Munich Re Foundation put economic losses in 2005 at more than $200 billion (£115 billion) with insured losses at more than $70 billion. Until now, 2004 had been considered the most costly year with respective figures of $145 billion and $45 billion.
This year's figures were pushed up by the highest number of hurricanes or storms since records began in 1850, and the strongest hurricane recorded. Insurers say they are part of a trend linked to climate change as a result of human-made emissions.
Indeed... or do the ostriches amongst us deny that Katrina ever happened? Is it "a normal part of the cycle" for entire cities to get wiped out?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
As for what I do personally - I don't run the heat all night - I'd get too hot! Road fuel I've talked about, and sometime in the near future I'll be replacing my heating boiler and getting the new style "condensing boiler". (The old type emits a lot of CO2 and water vapour) The condensing boilers work as their name suggests by condensing the water vapour. I believe that this exhaust is goes into the ground but don't have exact details today. In Britain as of next year, all new heating boilers must be condensing boilers.
Hmmmm..... the question wasn`t what you didn`t do, but what do you do, personaly in this noble fight to stop global warming.
Still, you have me a touch curious here on the "I`d get to hot" statement. You don`t have a thermostat or what? Man, you really should check these things out. why, it`s all the latest rage and we have been using them for.........well as long as I can remember. :)
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
Hey Sling, could you save a seat for Beetle? He is our resident expert in orbital Saran Wrap repair and construction :rofl
:rofl Too hilarious!
The only problem is, if that flight ended up for it`s passengers like the one in the flick, then the BBS would be much less comical and entertaining. :)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The keyword is "proportion" My 4 paragraphs, 330 words was in reply to Jack-all's 227 words spanning two separate posts. Rotax's 8 paragraphs, 683 words was in response to a silly grin!
[/b]
No, it was in response to your silly political agenda to cut the US GDP. I never expected you to understand and you sure did not disappoint me.
US $7,327
Japan $14,098
Germany $12,379
UK $14,452
France $19,954
[/b]
Beetle, you love to quote these figures as gospel. Prima facie it seems the US has only half the efficiency of our Euro cousins. Can you think of anything that the US produces, vis-a-vis say France, that consumes a lot of energy in the production cycle?
-
food.
useless, energy sucking food.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Hmmmm..... the question wasn`t what you didn`t do, but what do you do, personaly in this noble fight to stop global warming.
Still, you have me a touch curious here on the "I`d get to hot" statement. You don`t have a thermostat or what? Man, you really should check these things out. why, it`s all the latest rage and we have been using them for.........well as long as I can remember. :)
Yes, we have thermostats. I dare say we didn't have them 200 years ago, which explains why you had to ask. :lol
As for what I DO, I thought I told you. In addition to thermostats, we have timers. I have set mine to turn off the system between midnight and 6am. I like the temperature during the night to sink below the normal daytime temperature. There are also "timerstats" in which a timer can vary the overall temperature at set times. I don't have one of those. It doesn't usually get so cold here that I'd need one. Beetle, you love to quote these figures as gospel. Prima facie it seems the US has only half the efficiency of our Euro cousins. Can you think of anything that the US produces, vis-a-vis say France, that consumes a lot of energy in the production cycle? -rotax
Those were the figures submitted by Nashwan - ask him. But I would counsel against denouncing any factual data provided by Nashwan - only a very brave man (or a fool) would do that. Besides, -dead- explained it in his excellent post this morning. The resale of your imported goods from places like China contributes to GDP, and given that China is America's third most significant trading partner, that would account for rather a lot of GDP.
Part of the reason for the low GDP value per greenhouse gas output for the US is likely to be air travel within the US...
But I'm going to have to leave it there as I'm spending the weekend at a cute English town called Stow-on-the-Wold! I may be back later tomorrow, at which time I will once again be available for consultation. So till then... toodle-pip. ;)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Indeed... or do the ostriches amongst us deny that Katrina ever happened? Is it "a normal part of the cycle" for entire cities to get wiped out?
:confused:
Athens, 430 B.C.: Typhus epidemic
Pompei, 79: Volcanic eruption
Antioch, Syria, 526: Earthquake (250,000 dead)
Costantinopole, 542: Bubonic plague
Beirut, Lebanon, 551: earthquake and tsunami (tens of thousands dead)
Japan, 1181: famine (100,000 dead)
Holland, 1228: sea flood (100,000 dead)
Chihli, China, 1290: Earthquake (100,000 dead)
Europe and Asia, 1346-52: Bubonic plague or "black death" (one third of the European population dead plus millions in Asia and North Africa for a total of 25 million)
Shensi, China, 1556: earthquake (800,000 dead)
Napoli, Italy, 1631: Mt Vesuvius erupts (3,000 dead)
Havana, 1648: Yellow fever epidemic
Sevilla, Spain, 1649: Plague (80,000 dead)
Turkey, 1668: earthquake (8,000 dead)
Hokkaido, 1730: Earthquake (140,000 dead)
Lisbon, 1755: earthquake and tsunami (30,000 dead)
Calcutta, 1737: Earthquake (300,000 dead)
Bengal, India, 1769: famine (10 million dead)
India, 1775: Tsunami (60,000 dead)
Northamerica, 1775-82: Smallpox (130,000 dead)
Iran, 1780: earthquake (200,000 dead)
Caribbeans, 1780: Hurricane (22,000 dead)
Philadelphia, 1793: Yellow fever epidemic (5,000 dead)
Sumbawa, Indonesia, 1815: Mt Tambora erupts (90,000 dead)
Japan, 1826: Tsunami (27,000 dead)
Cairo, 1831: Cholera epidemic, which spreads to London
London and Paris, 1832: Cholera epidemic (25,000 dead)
Ireland, 1845: famine (one million dead)
Mapoli, Italy, 1857: earthquake (11,000 dead)
India, 1864: Cyclone (70,000 dead)
France, 1870-71: Smallpox (500,000 dead)
Bangladesh, 1876: Cyclone (200,000 dead)
China, 1876-78: Drought (9 million dead)
China, 1881: Typhoon (300,000 dead)
Indonesia, 1883: Tsunami (36,000 dead)
Huayan Kou, China, 1887: Yang-tse Kiang flooding (one million dead)
Mino-owari, Japan, 1891: earthquake (7,000 dead)
Sanriku, Japan, 1896: Tsunami (27,000 dead)
India, 1897: earthquake (1,500 dead)
Galveston, 1900: Hurricane (8,000 dead)
Martinique, 1902: Volcano (38,000 dead)
San Francisco, 1906: earthquake and fire (3,000 dead)
Colombia, 1906: earthquake (1,000 dead)
Chile, 1906: earthquake (20,000 dead)
China, 1907: famine (20 million dead)
Messina, Italy, 1908: 7.5 earthquake (70,000 dead)
Mexico City, 1911: earthquake
Worldwide, 1918: Influenza pandemic (25-100 million dead)
Gansu, China, 1920: 8.6 earthquake (200,000 dead)
Ukraine, 1921: Famine (5 million dead)
Yokohama, Japan, 1923: 8.3 earthquake (143,000 dead)
Nanshan, China, 1927: 8.3 earthquake (200,000 dead)
China, 1928: Famine (3 million dead)
Florida, USA, 1928: Hurricane (1800 dead)
China, 1931: Flooding (3.7 million dead)
Ukraine and Russia, 1932: Famine (5 million dead)
Gansu, China, 1932: 7.6 earthquake (70,000 dead)
Sanriku, Japan, 1933: 8.4 earthquake (3,000 dead)
Bihar, India, 1934: 8.1 earthquake (10,700 dead)
Quetta, Pakistan, 1935: 7.5 earthquake (60,000 dead)
China, 1936: Famine (5 million dead)
New York, USA, 1938: Rains (600 dead)
Erzincan, Turkey, 1939: 7.8 earthquake (33,000 dead)
China, 1941: Famine (3 million dead)
Bengal, India, 1943: famine (3.5 million dead)
Tonankai, Japan, 1944: 8.1 earthquake (1,200 dead)
Nankaido, Japan, 1946: earthquake (1,330 dead)
Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, 1948: earthquake (100,000 dead)
Assam, India, 1950: earthquake (1,526 dead)
Holland, 1953: Sea flood (1,794 dead)
Iran, 1953: Rain flood (10,000 dead)
Louisiana, USA, 1957: Hurricane (400 dead)
Worldwide, 1957: Influenza pandemic (about four million dead)
Japan, 1958: Typhoon (5,000 dead)
China, 1958-61: Famine (38 million dead)
Morocco, 1960: earthquake (10,000 dead)
Chile, 1960: 9.5 earthquake (5,700 dead)
Mt Huascaran, Peru, 1962: Volcano eruption (3,000)
India, 1965: Famine (1.5 million dead)
Worldwide, 1968: Influenza pandemic (about 750,000 dead)
China, 1969: Famine (20 million dead)
North Peru, 1970: 7.8 earthquake (66,000 dead)
Bangladesh, 1970: Sea flood (200-500,000 dead)
Vietnam, 1971: Red River flood (100,000 dead)
Nicaragua, 1972: earthquake flood (10,000 dead)
Bangladesh, 1974: floods (28,000 dead)
Ethiopia, 1974: famine (200,000 dead)
Haicheng, China, 1975: 7.0 earthquake (10,000 dead)
Tangshan, China, 1976: 8.0 earthquake (750,000 dead)
Guatemala, 1976: earthquake (23,000 dead)
Andhra Pradesh, India, 1977: cyclone (10,000 dead)
Caribbeans, 1979: Hurricane (2,000 dead)
Mexico, 1982: volcanic eruption (1,800 dead)
Yemen, 1982: earthquake (3,000 dead)
Bhopal, India, 1984: Chemical pollution (3,800 dead)
Ethiopia, 1984: Famine (900,000 dead)
Ciudad de Mexico, 1985: 8.1 earthquake (9,500 dead)
Colombia, 1985: Volcano (25,000 dead)
Armenia, 1988: earthquake (55,000 dead)
Colombia, 1985: eruption of Nevado del Ruiz (23,000 dead)
Bangladesh, 1988: Monsoon flood (1,300 dead)
Gilan and Zanjan, Iran, 1990: 7.7 earthquake (35,000 dead)
Bangladesh, 1991: tsunami (138,000 dead)
Latur, India, 1993: earthquake (22,000 dead)
Kobe, Japan, 1995: earthquake (5,500 dead)
Niger, 1995: meningitis epidemic (3,000 dead)
Chicago, USA, 1995: heatwave (739 dead)
North Korea, 1995-98: Famine and floods (3.5 million dead)
West Africa, 1996: meningitis outbreak (25,000 dead)
Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 1996: earthquake (??,000 dead)
Papua New Guinea, 1998: Tsunami (2,200 dead)
Yangtze Kiang, China, 1998: flooding (3,600 dead)
Central America, 1998: Hurricane Mitch and floods (12,000 dead)
Afghanistan, 1998: Earthquakes (10,000 dead)
Colombia, 1999: earthquake (1,185 dead)
Izmit, Turkey, 1999: earthquake (17,000 dead)
Taiwan, 1999: 7.6 earthquake (2,400 dead)
Orissa, India, 1999: Cyclone (7,600 dead)
Venezuela, 1999: Floods (20,000 dead)
Gujarat, India, 2001: earthquake (20,000 dead)
El Salvador, 2001: earthquake (850 dead)
Afghanistan, 2002: earthquake (2,500 dead)
Algeria, 2003: earthquake (2,266 dead)
Asia, 2003: SARS (744 dead, mostly in China)
Andhra Pradesh, India, 2003: Heat wave (1,300 dead)
France, Spain and Italy, 2003: Heat wave (50,000 dead)
Bam, Iran, 2003: earthquake (26,300 dead)
Al-Hoceima, Morocco, 2004: earthquake (571 dead)
Haiti and Dominican Republic, 2004: rains (2,400 dead)
Philippines, 2004: typhoon (1,000 dead)
China, 2004: floods (1,300 dead)
Southeast Asia, 2004: tsunamis caused by 9.0 earthquake (111,000 dead in Indonesia, 31,000 in Sri Lanka, 10,700 in India, 5,400 in Thailand, 68 in Malaysia, 82 in the Maldives, 300 in Myanmar and 150 in Somalia, including 1,500 Scandinavian tourists, and dozens of Germans, Italians, Dutch, etc)
Zarand, Iran, 2005: earthquake (500 dead)
Nias, Indonesia, 2005: 8.7 earthquake (1000 dead)
Mumbai, India, 2005: monsoon (1,000 dead)
China, 2005: floods (567 dead)
Louisiana and Mississippi, USA, 2005: hurricane (1,069 dead)
Niger, 2005: famine (10,000? dead)
Kashmir, 2005: earthquake (80,500 dead, of which 79,000 in Pakistan and 1,350 in India)
Central America, 2005: floods (1,400 dead, of which 1,200 in Guatemala)
really, katrina was just a drop in the bucket. Hell, in just Haiti, Port-au-Prince was leveled in 1751, 1760, 1770, & 1784. There's dozens (if not hundreds) more from prior to the invention of electricity that aren't even on the list. Out of 138 on that list, 57 alone are earthquakes... only 7 are hurricanes.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
food.
useless, energy sucking food.
lazs
You cheated Laz ... You read Beetles bumper sticker ... STARVE A CHILD AND SAVE A PENGUIN
-
Originally posted by beet1e
But I'm going to have to leave it there as I'm spending the weekend at a cute English town called Stow-on-the-Wold! I may be back later tomorrow, at which time I will once again be available for consultation. So till then... toodle-pip. ;)
How did you get there? You didn't increase your carbon footprint by using petroleum did you? Assuming you did, I am a better person than you are as I bicycled to work today.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Looking at the US import /export balance, the US imports almost twice what it exports. Which is odd: why would 5% of the world's population producing 30% of all the world's goods need to import almost twice as much, in cash terms as they exported? Why would China with a measly 3.7% of the world's GDP have just surpassed the US to become world leader in information and communications technology goods exports?
GDP is no measure the amount of goods produced at all, just the amount of money. Which may be why it always uses money as the unit.
Well, I am going to take a shot at this:-) I suspect they would need to import those goods, if their economy was producing a lot of other goods, for internal use, that could not be exported. What type of goods? Homes, automobiles, aircraft, paved roads, bridges, communications infrastructure, airports, hospitals, schools, universities, waste treatment plants, water, natural gas, and electrical grids...
I see something very interesting in that list. Little to none of those goods comes from China, yet they cost a fortune to build and maintain. Why is our GDP and our energy consumption so high? Simple really; we have more of those type of goods, per capita, than any other nation on earth.
ps
sorry about the microwave clock ... it sounds like a faulty j/k flip-flop, probably manufactured in Taiwan:-)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, we have thermostats. I dare say we didn't have them 200 years ago, which explains why you had to ask. :lol
Naw, it`s just that you are so far behind the U.S. in stuff like this I wasn`t for sure.
As for what I DO, I thought I told you. In addition to thermostats, we have timers. I have set mine to turn off the system between midnight and 6am. I like the temperature during the night to sink below the normal daytime temperature. There are also "timerstats" in which a timer can vary the overall temperature at set times. I don't have one of those.
Well I just wanted to give you a chance to lay out the big picture for us on what you do in order to alleviate what you are portraying as a very important issue to you. In other words you do nothing other than what anyone else does and what you lay out as your efforts is what anyone wanting to save a buck or two would do. You actualy do nothing, huh? Just another "Evil U.S. empire" thread oportunity. On a U.S. owned and based board at that. You ever wonder why you get so frustated when you get nailed here. Here`s your sign. :)
Ya know I was talking to a neighbor of mine this morning an he was telling me he was packing to go to Mexico until sometime in February. He will spend his and his family`s Christmas holidays there. The reason he is going is he wanted to contribute to something worthwhile to a cause he truly believed in and was concerned with. They have built an orphange there. They have family houses allready built with donations for materials. They are building 6 more this trip. What I am getting at here Beet is people who actualy are as concerned with something as you wish us to bite into believing you are on this subject matter, don`t sit back and blow smoke. They actualy do something. All you have done is taken another witless effort to down the U.S. The envy is killing you. Give it up.
-
Hi Jack-all, I see you're still spouting claptrap. This time it's thermostats whose history you know nothing about...
Originally posted by Jackal1
Naw, it`s just that you are so far behind the U.S. in stuff like this I wasn`t for sure.
Not only were you unsure, you were completely wrong. The thermostat was invented by a Dutchman, Cornelis Jacobszoon Drebbel, who served King James the First of England as a court scientist from 1606 onwards. :p So as you can see, the only "far behind" is what you talk out of.
Hey that's a laudable cause that your friend is getting into... but how much greenhouse gas will it save? I ask because this is a thread about the greenhouse effect, not about orphanages.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, we have thermostats. I dare say we didn't have them 200 years ago, which explains why you had to ask. :lol
Originally posted by beet1e
Not only were you unsure, you were completely wrong. The thermostat was invented by a Dutchman, Cornelis Jacobszoon Drebbel, who served King James the First of England as a court scientist from 1606 onwards. So as you can see, the only "far behind" is what you talk out of.
Apparently you were unsure as well Beetle. Either you had thermostats since the court of King James I (appx 400 yrs ago) or 200 years ago you didn't.
As I am superior to you due to the fact that I bicycle to work and you get to work by contributing to the greenhouse heating and ultimate death of humanity, you can stop your superiorty dance on this issue and get back to dissing us on gun deaths.
-
Death, death, come back death, I am just warming up...
ps
did that little tip clean, er, fix your clock :D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As I am superior to you due to the fact that I bicycle to work and you get to work by contributing to the greenhouse heating and ultimate death of humanity
Wrong. Those tyres on your bicycle that wear out were probably contructed in a process which caused the emission of some greenhouse gas. On the other hand, I don't go to work at all, so I'm superior to you.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Wrong. Those tyres on your bicycle that wear out were probably contructed in a process which caused the emission of some greenhouse gas. On the other hand, I don't go to work at all, so I'm superior to you.
But you import from China, which has little care about the environment, so you are a worse person. :D
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Not only were you unsure, you were completely wrong. The thermostat was invented by a Dutchman, Cornelis Jacobszoon Drebbel, who served King James the First of England as a court scientist from 1606 onwards. :p So as you can see, the only "far behind" is what you talk out of.
Naw, I was just wondering if you had one because you are so far behind in such things.
Hey that's a laudable cause that your friend is getting into... but how much greenhouse gas will it save? I ask because this is a thread about the greenhouse effect, not about orphanages.
Naw, this thread was tryed to be thinly disguised by you as such, then work in the actual reason for the thread..."The Evil U.S. empire" factor. You are fooling noone, not even yourself it seems.
According to you, you are doing absolutely nothing any other person wanting to save a buck or two is doing. Only thing you are doing in this thread is providing more laughs as usual.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Wrong. Those tyres on your bicycle that wear out were probably contructed in a process which caused the emission of some greenhouse gas. On the other hand, I don't go to work at all, so I'm superior to you.
You on welfare?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Wrong. Those tyres on your bicycle that wear out were probably contructed in a process which caused the emission of some greenhouse gas. On the other hand, I don't go to work at all, so I'm superior to you.
First of all I do not have tyres in my bicycle, I have tires.
That aside, I have never thought of the CO2 impact of my bikes tires and I see now how incredibly damaging their manufacture is to the environment and probably child labor in Malayasia.
No matter what I do I can't seem to change my carbon footprint. Screw it, I think I'll get a Hummer, maybe two, and let them idle constantly when I don't drive them, get a 1500m2 house and run the theromostat at 25C in the winter and 15C in the summer.
-
Jack-all,
No, I posted this thread in response to the closure and conclusions reached at the UN Summit on climate change in Montreal.
As for "what am I doing to help solve global warming"... well you're an idiot if you think that one person can solve it singlehandedly. That would be like me asking you "what are you doing about the insurgency/car bombings in Iraq"? The only thing an individual can do is to draw attention to the ecological disaster that awaits if nothing is done by government. It won't just sort itself out by market forces. And... despite the Montreal summit which was attended by delegates from 180 countries, the main problem with regard to greenhouse gas output is the USA - 25% of the world total. What this thread has done is to expose the "not our problem" attitude of so many who live there. There are so many miconceptions of the problem, and after Montreal I believe it was a good time to bring it up.
Here are some of the misconceptions....
We had one guy who said my list of CO2 emissions by country was BS. In fact he said it twice. And the basis of his rebuttal? He had walked down a Mexican street and had smelt sulphur in the air. Erm... hello? None of the three leading greenhouse gases contains sulphur.
We have people who "see no reason" not to go on burning fossil fuels at the same prodigious rate as before, and who even believe that the depletion of the world's oil reserves in the fastest possible time would be a good thing! They trust in some new alternative to arrive as if by magic.
We have a cheeky chappy from the other side of the world who said of my CO2 emissions data: "Given those figures are guesses by hippies based on energy use I think you're screwed in this thread." But then Nashwan came along and confirmed the figures using data provided by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (http://www.ornl.gov/) in Tennessee. The same cheeky chappy added "You think wrong. Depending on the situation a larger engine may prove more effecient. Simply stating a smaller engine burns half as much fuel exposes a very limited understanding of energy in general." The discussion is about greenhouse gas emissions, and I was able to quote manufacturer's data as well as DVLA vehicle test data, both of which supported my statement that CO2 emission is in direct proportion to engine size/quantity of fuel burnt.
The same data answers the "argument" put forward by the gentleman who suggested "More fuel efficient does not mean less green house gases, Beet. Try again." Both the DVLA data I supplied and the data provided by vehicle manufacturers show that CO2 emissions rise with engine size. I've just checked the BMW 5-series website and see that the emissions tax rises in line with engine size. The same gentleman quoted a source which he firmly believes to be true: "A 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards would reduce greenhouse emissions by only about 0.5 percent, even under the most optimistic assumptions.", but as I will show in a moment this is also false. So it's funny that the person who trusts such a flawed statement refuses to fly on an Airbus because he doesn't trust the technology.
I found the following CO2 emissions table on a pro 4x4 website.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/ecmv.jpg)
As can be seen from the figures, the overall pattern is that the cars with the largest engines burn the most fuel and emit the most CO2, so where some people get the idea that "a 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards would reduce greenhouse emissions by only about 0.5 percent" is a mystery to me.
I had to smile when I found this table, and saw which car was top of the list! :aok
-
Where's the hybrids on that chart? Those are common over here. When are you guys going to get with the program?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Jack-all,
No, I posted this thread in response to the closure and conclusions reached at the UN Summit on climate change in Montreal.
Well BeetOff, if you were going to do something such as this as a "response" to conclusions and closure of the summit, then you took a wrong turn at Tulsa slick. I doubt many members that attended the summit is here on the AH BBS. :) We all know the reason for the thread hoss. Give it up. :rofl
As for "what am I doing to help solve global warming"... well you're an idiot if you think that one person can solve it singlehandedly
Exactly, as I explained it in the above post. If you were truly interested you would be out either joining a group or starting a new group to raise awareness, but you are not because in reality you could care less. You are doing nothing but shooting for another "Evil U.S. Empire" attempt. One of many. On a U.S. owned and based board. Not the crispess pickle in the barrel, huh? :)
And... despite the Montreal summit which was attended by delegates from 180 countries, the main problem with regard to greenhouse gas output is the USA - 25% of the world total
Yea, yea..................my youngest granddaughter could see through that. Like I said earlier, we have a pulse rate above 30 here.
What this thread has done is to expose the "not our problem" attitude of so many who live there.
ROFLMAO What this thread has done is show your devoted envy of the U.S............once again. I can`t honestly believe that you post this crap with a straight face and expect it to fly. Then again................maybe you do. :)
Get with the program and go buy yourself a baseball bat. Keep it handy for swatting away those pesky stray asteroids that might be headed to earth in the future. Just about as believable as what you are trying to slide by here. :rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Mash tried to say the list I provided was BS, and Nashwan has since provided further proof that it isn't. And, in case you hadn't noticed, the problem has been discussed at a conference in Montreal just last week, with delegates from a multitude of countries present, the Kyoto treaty having been signed by 157 different countries. If global warming was a cyclic thing, why didn't they also have conferences in 1950, 1900, 1850, 1800...?(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/xmas.gif)
It IS/WAS BS. The ONLY thing you types want, is a closer "Per Capita". You have posted nothing else of worth Beet. I'm glad Bush didn't sign the toilet paper.
To sit here and tell me Eastern Europe is cleaner than the US further realizes your "quest".
Karaya
-
The market WILL work it out. At a point in time not that far off, fuel production will reach a peak, then will steadily decline......while demand will continue to rise. This will result in much higher fuel prices than we have today, and create a much higher demand for fuel efficient vehicles.
Eventually, if no alternative solution if found, we will probably see governments stepping in and rationing fuel big time. Then, there will be a REAL war for oil as nations become desperate. Those are dangers far more realistic and immediat than global warming.
Fuel reserves will run out, but long before they run out, production will decline. There will be less and less fuel, so less and less greenhouse gases all on it's own. Like magic!
After about 300 years, even if we do nothing to conserve fuel, there will be less fuel being used because less will be available and it will be priced sky high. So the problem will solve itself.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Where's the hybrids on that chart? Those are common over here. When are you guys going to get with the program?
If we really want to save the planet, we should ban gasoline engines and four wheel drive in vehicles that serve no real purpose.:D
-
Originally posted by mora
If we really want to save the planet, we should ban gasoline engines and four wheel drive in vehicles that serve no real purpose.:D
If you think that's best for your country, I couldn't care less :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The market WILL work it out. At a point in time not that far off, fuel production will reach a peak, then will steadily decline......while demand will continue to rise. This will result in much higher fuel prices than we have today, and create a much higher demand for fuel efficient vehicles.
Eventually, if no alternative solution if found, we will probably see governments stepping in and rationing fuel big time. Then, there will be a REAL war for oil as nations become desperate. Those are dangers far more realistic and immediat than global warming.
Fuel reserves will run out, but long before they run out, production will decline. There will be less and less fuel, so less and less greenhouse gases all on it's own. Like magic!
After about 300 years, even if we do nothing to conserve fuel, there will be less fuel being used because less will be available and it will be priced sky high. So the problem will solve itself.
On a more serious note, I do agree 100% with this and that's what I've been saying all the time. What I find funny is that some people are so desperate that they are even trying to dispute this. Saving energy and going to more efficient technology NOW would soften the blow and that's my agenda.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I don't like your post because it falls under one broad heading - "not what I want to hear".
-
I suspect that we have gone so far down the path in depleting our fossil fuel reserves, that cutting back now would be of little help. Let’s look at an example.
China has 20% of the worlds population, and 50% of it’s labor force grows food. The US has 5% of the worlds population, and .9% of it’s labor force grows food. We produce more food than China; how the heck is that possible?
Energy, and lots of it! Irrigation grids, crop rotation, genetically engineered crops, fertilizers, pesticides, combines, and transportation and storage infrastructure. Last but not least, we don’t have farmers in this country, we have agricultural engineers.
One sixth of the worlds population is malnourished. Over the next 25 years, the worlds population is going to grow by another 1.3 billion The vast majority of those people will be born in poor countries, without enough food.
How do we feed them by cutting back on energy usage?
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
How do we feed them by cutting back on energy usage?
A better idea would be taking steps to prevent that the population wouldn't grow as expected. Birth control and abortion should be made available to everyone, and people should be made aware that the population level of the world is unsustainable. If they still want to reproduce it's not my problem.
I guess you just got the answer you were fishing for. *puts on flamesuit*
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The market WILL work it out.
When I said that market forces wouldn't solve the problem, I was referring to the problem of climate change/ecological disaster. Read the preceding sentence! Obviously even a modest increased annual fuel cost of ~$500 is enough to deter people from buying 12mpg gas guzzlers, which is what I've said in this and an earlier thread, although as has already been stated, road vehicles are the tip of fuel usage iceberg.
Rotax - yes, I can see that agriculture is much more efficient in the US than China, a communist country with cheap labour where everything has been kept as labour intensive (read inefficient) as possible.
Even if all countries in the world recognised the global warming problem and agreed upon the steps which should be taken to address it, it would still not be easy.
But we are a long way from even that. As we saw in Montreal, America is reluctant even to participate in discussions, with one delegate even storming out of one of the meetings at the Montreal summit.
What's worse still is that as you can see, ^ despite the mountain of evidence and facts, many people refuse to believe that the US is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter, and many more refuse to believe that it even causes a problem.
The same people probably believe that thermostats were invented in Texas. (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/xmas.gif)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
When I said that market forces wouldn't solve the problem, I was referring to the problem of climate change/ecological disaster.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/xmas.gif)
I know what you were refering to. I just simplified it for you. The problem that you are worried about will solve itself.
-
Originally posted by mora
A better idea would be taking steps to prevent that the population wouldn't grow as expected.
Yeah, but then when we kill civilians you guys get upset with that too.
Can't win no matter what we do. And the world wonders why "Screw you we'll do what we want" is a common American thought.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Yeah, but then when we kill civilians you guys get upset with that too.
I'm not saying that anyone should be killed. Also I've never critisized any US military ops here.
Actually what I've been saying here is just the same as GWB has said. Energy/oil should be saved on voluntary basis and new technologies should be developed, and existing technologies should be utilized more(nuclear). People here seem to be against even those steps. I don't like the Kyoto treaty, but I'm not really against it either. Afterall it's about saving energy/oil, which is good.
The first step should be stopping the waste of oil. The reason I've critisized some parts of the american way of life is because it seems like outright waste to me(looking from engineers POV).
-
Well beet, if all you have left is putting up a fake quote and showing it was made by me, then you must be getting pretty weak on your stance issues. I coud have sworn I read somewhere here that that was unnaceptable on the BBS.
Think I`ll go fire up old Browny and blow a few of these earth saver hotrods roaming around here off the road. Seems you have nailed yourself on the subject .
-
Mora, you have explained the sad, but true, facts of life. The third world will limit it’s population through birth control, or starvation will limit it for them. An additional 1.3 billion people are unsustainable at the worlds present fossil fuel burn rate.
If we simply burn more fuel to support them, then Beetle will be living on his boat. I watched a report on CNN a few days ago. Scientists claim that if we melt all the land locked ice, sea levels will rise by twenty feet. I don’t think there is twenty feet of high ground between London and Wales! Florida, and much for our coastal land is in the same boat.
We really have a tiger by the tail. We can’t reduce the burn rate by an significant amount, now, or we trigger global economic recessions, and mass starvation. We can’t increase the burn rate much more, because we could be facing an environmental catastrophe, and in any case, there is not much more fuel to go around
-
For those new to this thread, here is a brief history of global warming…
The ever irreverent British started global warming some two hundred years ago. They did this by placing coal burning furnaces in their factories, in and around London. This was done in response to winter ice, which was forming on the River Themes.
Around this time, the ever inventive Americans were building New York City. They realized that if a few factories around London could melt ice on the Themes, then someday, many factories around the word, could melt all of the ice. Armed with this foresight, the Americans built their city.
New Your has long north south avenues, bisected by numerous east west streets. Natural canals so to speak. They built their city up, and up, and up. Small buildings are several hundred feet high, with taller building rising up to one thousand feet above sea level.
Contrast this to London, where the streets and avenues are a hodgepodge, running hither and yon around the compass. You can’t find your way around that city, when the streets are above water. Next, contrast the height of the buildings. The highest point in London, and indeed the only point which shall remain above the water, is the bell tower of Big Ben.
On a side note, BBC World News reported today that they arrested a man in London, caught attaching dock mooring along the bell tower of Big Ben. He had in his possession, drawings, of a rather large lens. It took a while to assemble the drawings, as they were cut up into many thousands of pieces. Sources say he just kept repeating over and over again, “It will never work.” Police say he will be kept under close observation.
Who says these forums are nothing but flamebait and mudslinging :D
-
Ah, I see nothing has changed, with Jack-all flatly denying there's a problem with the world's fossil fuel burn rate and the issues of running out of oil and ecolological disaster.
Jack-all, I don't know why you think envy has anything to do with this. Envy does not enter into it. Throughout this thread, I have been quoting American scientists, Americans who experienced exasperation at not being able to convince their president or other politician about the need for oil conservation, the American "Oak Ridge National Laboratory" in Tennessee which confirmed America's status as leading greenhouse gas emitter - something you and Mash deny, and now I'm about to quote from an interview with Paul Roberts, talking about his book that I just bought, "The End of Oil". Roberts is an American journalist and graduate of the University of Washington, living in Leavenworth, WA. Roberts says that Americans are “energy illiterate” -- we only think about the nation’s energy policy when oil prices hit us hard in the pocket. If the high price of oil keeps up, it may be just be the rude awakening needed for us to pressure politicians and in turn, the energy industry, to undertake massive investment in the alternatives to oil. If we don’t, the consequences will be disastrous: economic recession, environmental devastation, and further upheaval in the Middle East.
Energy illiterate? Before running this thread, I would not have known what that meant. Now I understand perfectly.
Roberts speaks of the "house sized" Ford Excursion that he test drove. I think he was talking about the verion with the 6.8 litre V10 engine, as he got 4.6mpg when he test drove it. 4.6 miles per gallon? LOL - that's worse than American cars built in the 1950s! I've read the first ~45 pages - the prologue and the first chapter. Quite an interesting read so far.
So Jack - I've been meaning to ask you. What do you think of this book? Can you provide me with a critique? I know you haven't read it, and therefore know nothing about it, but when has that ever stopped you from holding an opinion about anything? :lol
-
I think I'll read Micheal Crichton's "State of Fear" again instead.
-
We dont have to worry about air pollution here in the USA, the prevailing winds blow west to east and this means all our airborne crap falls on beetles home.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Ah, I see nothing has changed, with Jack-all flatly denying there's a problem with the world's fossil fuel burn rate and the issues of running out of oil and ecolological disaster.
I have denied nothing. That`s where you get your spurs all tangled up in your bloomers. I usualy like some pretty solid evidence when a theory is proposed before either denying or accepting. What I have said is, basicaly, it don`t matter one way or the other. The problem, if it actualy exists will be taken care of before it reachs critical stage, or not. If it is, great. If not we won`t have to worry about it. Like I told you before, you need to go out and buy yourself a baseball bat to swat away those pesky, stray asteroids that might be headed to earth in the future. Just as feasable and just as much chance of you doing something about it. At least you would be doing SOMETHING, which you have allready admitted you are not doing on this issue. You`re just taking another chance to post and "Evil U.S. Empre" attempt, like I said. I know it, you know it and so does the majority here. :)
So Jack - I've been meaning to ask you. What do you think of this book? Can you provide me with a critique? I know you haven't read it, and therefore know nothing about it, but when has that ever stopped you from holding an opinion about anything? :lol [/B]
[/QUOTE]
Well BeetOff, as you allready know, but I will point it out to you again, in the other thread, (You know the one that is discussing Mr. Roberts book`s and theories), this was layed out for you. Of course you haven`t watched the series. That is evident because this seems to be your first encounter on the subject whatsoever.
You just happened to find some statistics that you could use in your never ending "Evil U.S. Empire" crusade to make a tool out of yourself once again. I noticed , as does everyone else ,that you completely wish to ignore the facts concerning these statistics that my youngest grandchild can see through. We have a pulse rate above thirty here in the good ole U.S. of A.. We produce, feed, finance, supply and support a large portion of this little planet.
Once again, you have shown that you are not really interested in this subject with the exception of U.S. bashing. If you were , you would be doing something about it, but you have openly admitted you are not. You have also proven that you actualy know next to nothing on the subject itself other than the tidbit you are grasping and trying to put forth as a major concern. Get a grip. The envy will eat you up inside.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Once again, you have shown that you are not really interested in this subject with the exception of U.S. bashing. If you were , you would be doing something about it, but you have openly admitted you are not. You have also proven that you actualy know next to nothing on the subject itself other than the tidbit you are grasping and trying to put forth as a major concern. Get a grip. The envy will eat you up inside.
You said yourself that there was little any individual could do to make an impact [in the greenhouse gas emission total]. Indeed, even if the UK suddenly ceased to exist, greenhouse gas output would drop by only 2%. Maybe if I went out and built an orphanage it would make you feel better?
This thread was started in response to the aftermath of the Montreal summit. How can it be "evil empire bashing" when most of the sources I have quoted are Americans themselves? Answer: You're wrong. We have a pulse rate above thirty here in the good ole U.S. of A.. We produce, feed, finance, supply and support a large portion of this little planet.
You and I can only dream of being so fit that we'd have a resting heartbeat of 30. I appreciate it's much higher where you live - to be expected in the land of supersized "snacks" and quadburgers.
-
not a good arguement beet.... I have seen and eaten "english breakfasts".
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You said yourself that there was little any individual could do to make an impact [in the greenhouse gas emission total].
Yes I did and i also said that if someone was TRUELY as interested in doing something as you would like us to beleive you are, you would join a GROUP to get something done possibly. But of course you are not really concerned about the issue. Maybe becuase you are reading the book that`s supposed to be your effort.
. Maybe if I went out and built an orphanage it would make you feel better?
Well at least you would be doing something, anything, instead just spouting off about a subject and trying to pass off a horse for a milk cow. But then again, I get the feeling that you eleive that atualy doing smoething, anything, is beneath you.
This thread was started in response to the aftermath of the Montreal summit
And once aain....if you are responding to the summit on this board , you took a wrong turn at Tulsa.
This thread was started in response to the aftermath of the Montreal summit. How can it be "evil empire bashing" when most of the sources I have quoted are Americans themselves? Answer: You're wrong.
Naw. I`m right on track. You know it, I know it and the majority here knows what the intent of this thread was. The problem is you wish to overlook the facts and dwell on the statistics number you found that suits your purpose. Just disregard reality and trudge on.
You and I can only dream of being so fit that we'd have a resting heartbeat of 30
I`m not buying that you are so dense that you didn`t understand that, but then again........................ ............................. ...........
That was a reference to the pace and activity of our country compared to others. We`re movers and shakers.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You and I can only dream of being so fit that we'd have a resting heartbeat of 30. I appreciate it's much higher where you live - to be expected in the land of supersized "snacks" and quadburgers.
I used to have a resting HR of about 45, since I had a fittness lifestyle that included commuting on my bicycle. But since I was talked out of riding my bike due to the tremendous ecological and social damage during the manufacture of my bicycles tires, I have been talked out of that. I have already gained a few pounds and I think I'll get a pizza delivered this afternoon and until then scarf down a few happy meals.
I take delivery on my twin Hummers in March. Just to do my part until then I am just keeping a couple of oil barrels burning in the front yard.
Thanks a bunch Beetle.
-
mine runs about 72... allways has and.... most of it is not even my heart.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Yes I did and i also said that if someone was TRUELY as interested in doing something as you would like us to beleive you are, you would join a GROUP to get something done possibly. But of course you are not really concerned about the issue. Maybe becuase you are reading the book that`s supposed to be your effort.
Oh yeah, well that would be just peachy - not. Can you imagine it - discussing it here when the problem exists in the land of the 4.6mpg Ford Excursion? Like I said, and as was pointed out in the figures published by the American Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the UK emits only 2% of the world's greenhouse gas. How would "joining a group" here do any good? That would be like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. For greenhouse gas, the problem countries are 1) USA, 2) China - whether you like it or not. Part of the reason for China being in the #2 spot is because it produces a great deal of goods to be sold in the USA at outlets like WalMart, as China is America's third most significant trading partner. The only way to address the "greenhouse" problem is to tackle it at the source. I suppose if asked for your answer for keeping flies out of the kitchen, it would be... to put butter and sugar in all the other rooms. :rolleyes: And once again....if you are responding to the summit on this board , you took a wrong turn at Tulsa.
And once again, no I wasn't. I was referring to the summit in Montreal, as I have stated about six times so far. The newspaper article is here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/10/wkyoto10.xml.).Naw. I`m right on track. You know it, I know it and the majority here knows what the intent of this thread was. The problem is you wish to overlook the facts and dwell on the statistics number you found that suits your purpose. Just disregard reality and trudge on.
No, overlooking the facts is your speciality, and that of others who claim that CO2 output is constant, regardless of engine size, and/or that CO2 Output data as listed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory is "BS". Besides, what would be the point of debating this issue on a board in Greenland, or Senegal or Kenya? Those countries are not where the problem is, whereas there are MANY people on this board in the US, some of whom came up with interesting answers. Suits my purpose? The thread title is a question, and my input has largely been to reproduce material from American sources. So what "purpose" are you talking about?
No need to get so hot and bothered, Jack-all. Time to adjust that thermostat! (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/xmas.gif)
HMcG - did you really have an HR of 45? That's very good!
Lazs, 72 is slightly better than average.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
HMcG - did you really have an HR of 45? That's very good!
Yeah... I was fitness oriented since I was maybe 12 yrs old.... then for some reason a few days ago I lost all my motivation.
I have been wondering... how would you explain the global warming of Mars, Jupiter and Pluto? (These have been measured and the polar ice of Mars is smaller today than it was a few years ago.)
We cannot totally solve a problem unless we can fully understand and expain it and anthropogenic greenhouse gasses do not explain the extraterrestrial warming trend.
Or perhaps we should just ignore these data and continue present policy.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Oh yeah, well that would be just peachy - not. Can you imagine it - discussing it here when the problem exists in the land of the 4.6mpg Ford Excursion? Like I said, and as was pointed out in the figures published by the American Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the UK emits only 2% of the world's greenhouse gas. How would "joining a group" here do any good? That would be like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. For greenhouse gas, the problem countries are 1) USA, 2) China - whether you like it or not.
So, you are trying to prove my point for me again I see. Thanks. You joining a group "there" would at least be an effort. Posting about what is supposedly going on in our country is like telling a duck it can swim. We allready know what is being done here. We feed, clothe, support, finance and protect a good chunk of the real estate on this planet. Like I said ,and you seem to have a problem getting a grip on, we have a pulse rate of over 30 here. We are movers and shakers. Now we could stop all food production and transportation, but I don`t see that happening just because you might think it is the thing to do. The problem , if one actualy exists, will be solved or it won`t be. Either way will work.
And once again, no I wasn't. I was referring to the summit in Montreal, as I have stated about six times so far.
And about six times you have been told that you took a wrong turn in Tulsa. This is the AH BBS O`club. Read the header. It will all come clear to you eventualy.................... .....or maybe not.
Besides, what would be the point of debating this issue on a board in Greenland, or Senegal or Kenya?
The point would be that you would have a better shot at making this fly. :)
Maybe you couold get someone to buy into the "Evil U.S. Empire" crap. Here you don`t stand much of a chance.
No need to get so hot and bothered, Jack-all
BeetOff, "hot and bothered" has a meaning here that I`m sure you don`t understand, but I can also assure you that a post on a message board won`t do the trick.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I have been wondering... how would you explain the global warming of Mars, Jupiter and Pluto? (These have been measured and the polar ice of Mars is smaller today than it was a few years ago.)
Planetary heating and cooling on Mars is atmospherically regulated. Solar radiation warms up the surface. Warm air rises, mixing with the colder air in the atmosphere. This creates storms, which kick up a lot of dust. Dust is an efficient UV blocker. Incoming UV is reduced, outgoing IR remains the same, and the surface cools down.
Pluto works the same, except instead of dust, atmospheric nitrogen and methane undergo a phase transition.
Jupiter, is of course, under the control of the monolith.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
So, you are trying to prove my point for me again I see. Thanks.
You're welcome. Have a nice day. You joining a group "there" would at least be an effort.
A futile effort - like trying to extinguish the recent Buncefield oil depot inferno with a garden hose. We feed, clothe, support, finance and protect a good chunk of the real estate on this planet. Like I said ,and you seem to have a problem getting a grip on, we have a pulse rate of over 30 here. We are movers and shakers.
So you've said - about three times actually. Change the record. Now we could stop all food production and transportation, but I don`t see that happening just because you might think it is the thing to do.
I never suggested that. But LOL - 4.6mpg SUVs? :rolleyes: And about six times you have been told that you took a wrong turn in Tulsa.
I've never been to Tulsa, so I don't understand this reference. Please explain. Sorry if you already did, but hey - you seem to enjoy saying things over and over and over, and over and over and over... The point would be that you would have a better shot at making this fly. Maybe you couold get someone to buy into the "Evil U.S. Empire" crap. Here you don`t stand much of a chance.
Hah - safety in numbers, eh? When have you ever known me to be cowed by the O'Club? ;) My thread title asks a question. I now have answers. I hadn't fully understood Carl Sagan's exasperation in trying to convince key Americans of the urgency of this matter. Now I understand perfectly, and can see the pigheadedness that he must have come up against himself. BeetOff, "hot and bothered" has a meaning here that I`m sure you don`t understand, but I can also assure you that a post on a message board won`t do the trick.
Oh! Well you seem to have devoted a considerable chunk of your time to this thread, if you think it "won't do the trick".
Toodle-Pip, and don't forget to lower that thermostat before you go to bed! :rofl
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/xmas.gif)
-
I remember years ago, there was a short article in Physical Review, on room temperature, superconducting, polymers.
I see that there is now a startup company in California http://ultraconductors.com/
This is one of those ‘miracle’ technologies that Bush talks about. The polymers have 100,000 times the conductivity of copper, at temperatures up to 750F (the tip of a cigarette). Once production ramps up, this will be a true revolution in electronics.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Roberts speaks of the "house sized" Ford Excursion that he test drove. I think he was talking about the verion with the 6.8 litre V10 engine, as he got 4.6mpg when he test drove it. 4.6 miles per gallon? LOL - that's worse than American cars built in the 1950s! I've read the first ~45 pages - the prologue and the first chapter. Quite an interesting read so far.
You keep bringing up this "4.6-mpg" as if we all drive monster SUVs. We don't. The vast majority of responsible Americans on a budget commute in fuel-efficient vehicles. The difference is DISTANCE TO DESTINATION. You will never get it and I don't think you want to get it. What your problem is, is what we call here "small man's syndrome"
You keep pointing across the pond at us saying, "It's all Amerikka's fault" and "it's all Booshes fault", but meanwhile you're taking a frivolous weekend excursion on a pleasure boat. You're no better than the screaming tree-huggers out on the left coast crying about pollution and fuel consumption while REFUSING to invest in a viable mass transit system for themselves. With you as well as them it's faily clear that this issue is not imporant enough for YOU to take ALL the necessary steps to meet the end in your goal; Everyone else must sacrifice for the greater good (but my boat trip isn't producing THAT much green house gas).
What the course of this thread has shown is that you are very upset (rightfully so) that your government has taxed you into submission. Misery loves company eh? I’m on to you.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
You keep bringing up this "4.6-mpg" as if we all drive monster SUVs. We don't. The vast majority of responsible Americans on a budget commute in fuel-efficient vehicles. The difference is DISTANCE TO DESTINATION. You will never get it and I don't think you want to get it. What your problem is, is what we call here "small man's syndrome"
Distance to destination - average vehicle mileage in the US = 12,000 miles, UK = 10,000 miles. I was surprised at how little difference there was. I accept that few people drive 4.6mpg SUVs, but the fact that they exist (with a 6.8 litre V10 engine) and are affordable to many instead of being exclusive (like Bentley or Aston Martin) is an indicator of complacency towards fuel conservation.
My frivolous boat trip is a week long deal. There will be 6 of us, and we won't need to refuel in that week.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
You keep bringing up this "4.6-mpg" as if we all drive monster SUVs. We don't. The vast majority of responsible Americans on a budget commute in fuel-efficient vehicles. The difference is DISTANCE TO DESTINATION. You will never get it and I don't think you want to get it. What your problem is, is what we call here "small man's syndrome"
You keep pointing across the pond at us saying, "It's all Amerikka's fault" and "it's all Booshes fault", but meanwhile you're taking a frivolous weekend excursion on a pleasure boat. You're no better than the screaming tree-huggers out on the left coast crying about pollution and fuel consumption while REFUSING to invest in a viable mass transit system for themselves. With you as well as them it's faily clear that this issue is not imporant enough for YOU to take ALL the necessary steps to meet the end in your goal; Everyone else must sacrifice for the greater good (but my boat trip isn't producing THAT much green house gas).
What the course of this thread has shown is that you are very upset (rightfully so) that your government has taxed you into submission. Misery loves company eh? I’m on to you.
Beet has been going out to saddle up each day. He just hasn`t noticed that the horse is dead . :)
-
All the guys I know who drive suv's must be lieing to me cause they all claim to get over 20mpg on a trip. I don't think anyone I know would put up with 4.6 mpg in a family car.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Distance to destination - average vehicle mileage in the US = 12,000 miles, UK = 10,000 miles. I was surprised at how little difference there was. I accept that few people drive 4.6mpg SUVs, but the fact that they exist (with a 6.8 litre V10 engine) and are affordable to many instead of being exclusive (like Bentley or Aston Martin) is an indicator of complacency towards fuel conservation.
My frivolous boat trip is a week long deal. There will be 6 of us, and we won't need to refuel in that week.
05’ was the last year for the Excursion. This is an example of free market taking care of itself, something I wouldn't expect a dyed in the wool socialist to understand. It is also yet another example of a bad business decision from Detroit. Think of it as an economic version of Darwinism.
It's unbelievable how you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. First of all you basically say that a vehicle that gets 4.6-mpg should be illegal, then you justify your holiday by saying almost exactly what I predicted you would (my boat trip isn't going to produce THAT much green house gas). If it wasn't so frustrating, it would be laughable.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
First of all you basically say that a vehicle that gets 4.6-mpg should be illegal
Never said that then you justify your holiday
Four of the people on that holiday are drivers. Our normal weekly schedule will be interrupted. We won't be doing any driving that week and therefore the trip will save quite a bit of fuel. dyed in the wool socialist
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Four of the people on that holiday are drivers. Our normal weekly schedule will be interrupted. We won't be doing any driving that week and therefore the trip will save quite a bit of fuel.
Ah, but you're wrong. Those people drive to a job where they produce something. Therefore the fuel burned is offset by the product produced. The only thing "produced" by your holiday will be greenhouse gases.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
Ah, but you're wrong. Those people drive to a job where they produce something.
No they don't. Two of us are retired, and the other two are students.
-
My Yukon will do 17.5 highway, drops to about 14.5 in town.
In my town they don't use salt in the winter just some sand. You don't see pavement for about 4 months each year. Lots of hills here in the Adirondacks too. I don't think I could pull my 21' boat with a hybrid. I'm also in the beer business, can't throw 100 cases in a hybrid either.;)
Jeff
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No they don't. Two of us are retired, and the other two are students.
So they just drive around wasting fuel all the time? I hope you spend your week with them explaining to them how they are ruining the planet (while you're ruining the planet).
This is just too funny.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No they don't. Two of us are retired, and the other two are students.
So then none of you produce anything? You are all just drains on the economy? You just breathe in valuable oxygen and expell CO2 with no value given to the greater good of the world?
You know what an organism that exists on the back of a host with no advantage to the host is called, don't you?
Seems I am superior to you after all even with the ecological deveastation of my bicycle tires.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So then none of you produce anything? You are all just drains on the economy? You just breathe in valuable oxygen and expell CO2 with no value given to the greater good of the world?
No, we pay taxes, and we have spending power which stimulates the economy. Our boat trip will also stimulate the economy, by providing income to the people running the boat basin, the people who own and maintain the boats, the people who maintain the waterways, and the shops/pubs/restaurants along the route that we shall use.
-
My Suburban gets about 17-18 highway, and maybe 12 or so around town. And yes, I need that large of a car.
From reading this novel, Beetle comes off as a hypocrite with a keen sense of rationalization. Just an observation.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No, we pay taxes, and we have spending power which stimulates the economy. Our boat trip will also stimulate the economy, by providing income to the people running the boat basin, the people who own and maintain the boats, the people who maintain the waterways, and the shops/pubs/restaurants along the route that we shall use.
I think you've just discovered capitalism! Welcome aboard, it's a fun ride!
(You are, by the way, one of the biggest hypocrites I have yet to run across)
-
Originally posted by Skilless
I think you've just discovered capitalism!
I was born into it and never left it. (You are, by the way, one of the biggest hypocrites I have yet to run across)
It's an illusion caused by your pretending to understand me, when you don't have the faintest idea of who I am.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So then none of you produce anything? You are all just drains on the economy? You just breathe in valuable oxygen and expell CO2 with no value given to the greater good of the world?
You know what an organism that exists on the back of a host with no advantage to the host is called, don't you?
Seems I am superior to you after all even with the ecological deveastation of my bicycle tires.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Everyone pollutes the planet but me and thee, and I am beginning to suspect thee.
Where have I heard that before?
The Montreal summit. The worlds movers and shakers, in assemble, to lecture the world on energy abuse. They fly across the globe, born on wings of steel. Their 747s with neat, decorative, logos, consume more gas per flight, than I have used in a careers worth of daily commuting. Food consumption? Ha … what is the energy cost of my BigMac, versus their lobster, caviar, shrimp, and prim rib? Their fine, flawless, china, costs many orders of magnitude more in energy, than my meager porcelain plates. My auto gets 23 miles per gallon. Their armored plated stretch limos get 2 -3 gallons per mile.
Am I missing something here?
-
no rotax.... I think you have a pretty good handle on it.
lazs
-
An airliner gets 80 mpg per passenger. But don't let the facts get into your way.
-
maybe.... maybe not... not if it isn't full and...even if it is.... not if more than 90% are useless vacationers..
and.... for getting 80mpg it has to be the dirtiest 80 mpg ever recorded... lots of unburned fuel and pollution.
lazs
-
When the production, maintenance, and operating cost of that ‘airline’ is used for the transportation of one individual?
Let’s not play stupid here. When you have you own 747 at your beck and call, don’t lecture me on the gas mileage of my Ford.