The environment thread

[EvilMonkey]

The overwhelming paradigm in climate science is that the planet is warming and that humans are responsible for a significant portion of that.

The first part of that there is some evidence for. The second part is very much open for debate. Animal farts supposedly do more harm than people. Maybe the bovines should institute a cap and trade on gaseous emissions.

 

Lets go your route for a sec. Assume that everything you say is correct. What would you have us do? Are you ready to pay $10 a gallon for gas? Ready to eat crappy food once they decide that commercial farming is bad for the earth? Watch people starve since without commercial farming we wont be able to feed everyone? Or transport the food to where it is needed without truck, or trains? Institute population controls because humans are bad for the planet? Give up your car? How about your computer, since all that electricity has to be made from some kind of fuel. And would these restrictions only be for the US, or would China, India, Europe etc. also have to go along? How far are you willing to lower your standard of living in order to accomplish what you want the world to do? And after you answer that, why haven't you done it already? Why wait for the government to force everyone else to do it. If it is so right, what are you waiting for? Do it now, do your part.

[StrangeSox]

The first part of that there is some evidence for. The second part is very much open for debate. Animal farts supposedly do more harm than people. Maybe the bovines should institute a cap and trade on gaseous emissions.

 

Even if the "methane from cow farts" bit was true, why are there so many bovines in the world?

 

edit: There's "some" evidence for it like there's "some" evidence that the world is round.

 

Lets go your route for a sec. Assume that everything you say is correct. What would you have us do? Are you ready to pay $10 a gallon for gas?

 

If that's the true cost of gas, sure. Right now we're leaving out a huge chunk of externalities.

 

Ready to eat crappy food once they decide that commercial farming is bad for the earth? Watch people starve since without commercial farming we wont be able to feed everyone?

 

It's not about authority figures deciding or declaring things. But, anyway, yes, there are problems with current commercial farming practices, just like there were problems with farming before the dust bowl. That doesn't mean it needs to be abandoned, just modified to use land, water and fertilizer in better ways.

 

Or transport the food to where it is needed without truck, or trains?

 

Who says trucks and trains are going to disappear?

 

Institute population controls because humans are bad for the planet?

 

I don't think we need population controls now. But should the human race continue growing indefinitely? What if we reach 50 Billion people? There's a limited carrying capacity for the planet.

 

Give up your car? How about your computer, since all that electricity has to be made from some kind of fuel.

 

More strawmen. I'm not a luddite. I don't propose we all follow Walden and go live in the woods. I fully support alternative forms of energy such as geothermal, wind, wave, solar and, where we really need to go short- and mid-term in my opinion, nuclear.

 

And would these restrictions only be for the US, or would China, India, Europe etc. also have to go along?

The US is already looking like the laggard here. The rest of the world, including China, has recognized the problem and has started to correct it.

 

And after you answer that, why haven't you done it already? Why wait for the government to force everyone else to do it. If it is so right, what are you waiting for? Do it now, do your part.

 

My electricity bill was $30 last month, over half of it was fees and not actual power usage. My commute is 5 miles. I recycle. I've started to modify what sorts of food I buy and where I eat. I try to use less and less plastic and limit the number of disposable items I buy. I pay attention to the practices of stores I shop at. I vote for politicians who plan to actually do something about this problem.

 

How far are you willing to lower your standard of living in order to accomplish what you want the world to do?

 

I wanted to save this one for last and turn it around on you:

 

How long are you willing to ignore that the status quo is not sustainable? That "do nothing" means our standard of living is going to drop. That we'll continue to have more and more droughts and floods and record highs and lows around the world. That power plants will have to run at lower capacity because their cooling water is too hot. That acidification of the ocean isn't a real problem. That nitrogen runoff into lakes, rivers and the oceans isn't killing the base levels of the food chain for those ecosystems. That the garbage island in the Pacific is only going to keep growing and keep killing marine life and birds.

 

How long are you willing to ignore that many of the industrial practices of the 19th and 20th century are incredibly destructive to the environment and that continuing these actions will result in long-term costs and harm for people? How far are you willing to mortgage the standard of living of future generations so that you don't have to change now?

Edited October 13, 2010 by StrangeSox

[EvilMonkey]

I wanted to save this one for last and turn it around on you:

 

How long are you willing to ignore that the status quo is not sustainable? That "do nothing" means our standard of living is going to drop. That we'll continue to have more and more droughts and floods and record highs and lows around the world. That power plants will have to run at lower capacity because their cooling water is too hot. That acidification of the ocean isn't a real problem. That nitrogen runoff into lakes, rivers and the oceans isn't killing the base levels of the food chain for those ecosystems. That the garbage island in the Pacific is only going to keep growing and keep killing marine life and birds.

 

How long are you willing to ignore that many of the industrial practices of the 19th and 20th century are incredibly destructive to the environment and that continuing these actions will result in long-term costs and harm for people? How far are you willing to mortgage the standard of living of future generations so that you don't have to change now?

You see, I have never said 'do nothing'. Ever. While I have championed more drilling, I have also said we need to come up with alternative fuel sources, and use the ones we have now such as nuclear power. I applaud the people trying to discover those alternate sources, but will hate it when they are forced upon everyone if they are not ready. When companies pollute, I want them punished, not a slap on the wrist. Likewise, I want the EPA to be reigned in in certain areas. Like one of their new proposals to classify DUST as a pollutant for farms. I recycle, and just started a recycling program at my new job for all of our waste paper. It is good that you are doing your part and not a total hypocrit like so many people are. But short terms costs do have to be considered otherwise we will all revert to third world status whether we want to or not. Nobody will be able to afford the $10 gas, or to pay for the food which will be super expensive due to increased farming costs, transportation costs, etc. As for the 'rest of the world already addressing this', yeah, well, they at least give it lip service. How many countries met thier Kyoto goals? And how come China and India are always exempt from these things? China burns more cola than the US, yet they are correcting the problem? I don't think so.

[NorthSideSox72]

You see, I have never said 'do nothing'. Ever. While I have championed more drilling, I have also said we need to come up with alternative fuel sources, and use the ones we have now such as nuclear power. I applaud the people trying to discover those alternate sources, but will hate it when they are forced upon everyone if they are not ready. When companies pollute, I want them punished, not a slap on the wrist. Likewise, I want the EPA to be reigned in in certain areas. Like one of their new proposals to classify DUST as a pollutant for farms. I recycle, and just started a recycling program at my new job for all of our waste paper. It is good that you are doing your part and not a total hypocrit like so many people are. But short terms costs do have to be considered otherwise we will all revert to third world status whether we want to or not. Nobody will be able to afford the $10 gas, or to pay for the food which will be super expensive due to increased farming costs, transportation costs, etc. As for the 'rest of the world already addressing this', yeah, well, they at least give it lip service. How many countries met thier Kyoto goals? And how come China and India are always exempt from these things? China burns more cola than the US, yet they are correcting the problem? I don't think so.

I agree that you have to be careful how things are implemented, and when. Immediately internalizing externalities to the cost of gasoline, for example, would be economically catastrophic if done all at once. So you have to go at it from different angles, and do it over time.

 

But to me, there is a win-win scenario available here. You can remove all tax breaks and incentives currently given to oil companies and their like, add in some other money, and make real investments (pretty big ones) in alternative energy sources. Instead of penalizing people for polluting, you make it cheaper and more reasonable for consumers to make the switch to alternatives over time. This has the benefit of creating new, growing businesses in cutting edge areas, which I think is huge for the US, but also allows the economy to make the shift in a healthy way.

 

I disagree on the drilling though, I don't think we should be spending a single taxpayer dime on any new drilling, and I don't think we should be allowing licensure to any new fields for development. Because you can't make this work if you incentivize going backwards.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I agree that you have to be careful how things are implemented, and when. Immediately internalizing externalities to the cost of gasoline, for example, would be economically catastrophic if done all at once. So you have to go at it from different angles, and do it over time.

 

But to me, there is a win-win scenario available here. You can remove all tax breaks and incentives currently given to oil companies and their like, add in some other money, and make real investments (pretty big ones) in alternative energy sources. Instead of penalizing people for polluting, you make it cheaper and more reasonable for consumers to make the switch to alternatives over time. This has the benefit of creating new, growing businesses in cutting edge areas, which I think is huge for the US, but also allows the economy to make the shift in a healthy way.

 

I disagree on the drilling though, I don't think we should be spending a single taxpayer dime on any new drilling, and I don't think we should be allowing licensure to any new fields for development. Because you can't make this work if you incentivize going backwards.

I agree with the removing of the tax breaks. But if we don't drill in some areas, China, Cuba, etc will. We still need to drill in the meantime.

 

The part about making it cheaper for consumers to switch is key. Same goes for recycling. I had to search a long time to find someone to come and recycle my used paper without me having to pay them to do it. The ones that were no cost to me wanted to leave HUGE dumpsters in the back, and I don't have that room either. Finally found a place that would leave a small garbage dumpster size container and even pays me a few bucks. Not much, but lunch for the office.

[Balta1701]

But if we don't drill in some areas, China, Cuba, etc will. We still need to drill in the meantime.

Is it worth noting that this claim has been repeatedly established and admitted to be false?

Cheney cited as a source a June 5 column by George F. Will, and several other Republicans had repeated the charge by the time Cheney said it. But Will has since corrected his original assertion, saying: "While Cuba has partnered with Chinese companies to drill in the Florida Straits, no Chinese company has been involved in Cuba's oil exploration that close to the United States." Cheney's office has also acknowledged it wasn't true.

[EvilMonkey]

Is it worth noting that this claim has been repeatedly established and admitted to be false?

I didn't say they are, I said they will, if we don't. Sooner or later they will need it, and if it is there, what is going to stop them from taking it?

[Balta1701]

I didn't say they are, I said they will, if we don't. Sooner or later they will need it, and if it is there, what is going to stop them from taking it?

[NorthSideSox72]

You think the US is going to project naval power into international waters to stop other countries from drilling?

 

Or are we talking specifically about US waters here?

 

This is a non-issue. If its US waters, no other country is stupid enough to try to drill without authority from the US. If its outside of territorial waters, the US has no case to intervene, and won't.

 

[southsider2k5]

 

You need an angry Obama picture instead. We just pay lipservice now.

[Balta1701]

This is a non-issue. If its US waters, no other country is stupid enough to try to drill without authority from the US. If its outside of territorial waters, the US has no case to intervene, and won't.

Exactly why this is a myth.

[NorthSideSox72]

Exactly why this is a myth.

That doesn't make it a myth - unless, again, we are talking about the idea that Cuba or China or anyone else drilling in US waters without permission, which won't happen. But the general point, that other countries will drill where they can, certainly stands.

 

[Balta1701]

That doesn't make it a myth - unless, again, we are talking about the idea that Cuba or China or anyone else drilling in US waters without permission, which won't happen. But the general point, that other countries will drill where they can, certainly stands.

Which is the exact myth that he quoted...that oil in U.S. waters is being drilled by Cuba and China. The whole reason why Cuba comes into this at all is that it's close enough to Florida that you can legitimately whip up scared people by saying they're taking our oil.

[EvilMonkey]

Which is the exact myth that he quoted...that oil in U.S. waters is being drilled by Cuba and China. The whole reason why Cuba comes into this at all is that it's close enough to Florida that you can legitimately whip up scared people by saying they're taking our oil.

wHOA WHOA WHOA, I did not ever specify where the drilling would be, you just assumed it. And Cuba could drill in the gulf, close enough to American waters that the oil deposits could be on both sides. I know that currently nobody is doing that, but it is being talked about and when oil becomes expensive enough it will be done, by someone.

[Balta1701]

wHOA WHOA WHOA, I did not ever specify where the drilling would be, you just assumed it. And Cuba could drill in the gulf, close enough to American waters that the oil deposits could be on both sides. I know that currently nobody is doing that, but it is being talked about and when oil becomes expensive enough it will be done, by someone.

There's actually a really big reason why Cuba does very little drilling as it is...Cuba doesn't have substantial refining capacity, and it makes no sense for anyone to invest in a large refinery facility on that island, because there are massive refinery facilities in a nearby country.

 

Cuba would probably do a lot more drilling...without the embargo...because they'd sell the oil to the U.S. for processing.

[Balta1701]

In a seemingly never-ending parade of radio, television, print and web ads, in addition to numerous official statements, BP officials have repeatedly insisted that the company intends to make the Gulf Coast and its residents "whole" again. In the latest such PR blitz, BP employee and New Orleans native Iris Cross reiterates that the company will do everything it has to do in order to "make this right."

 

But yesterday in federal court, an attorney for the oil giant sent shockwaves throughout the Gulf region by suggesting that BP may seek shelter under the $75 million liability cap polluters can invoke under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

 

U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who's presiding over the more than 300 consolidated lawsuits against the company, was taken aback when BP attorney Don Haycraft floated the idea of the liability cap. Barbier replied simply that "BP said it would pay whatever [is] necessary." Steven Herman, a plaintiffs attorney in the case, also registered surprise. "We're shocked over here to hear the defendants now bring up this $75 million cap," he said. "We were under the impression it was waived."

 

Haycraft did not dispute BP's oft-repeated stance -- but he also noted that the company has already forked over "lots and lots" of money, suggesting that the Oil Pollution Act could help stanch the company's cash outlays in reparation to spill victims who've lost income as a result of the disaster.

Link

[StrangeSox]

Alternative Energy in China

 

You have to register to read, ubt here's an interesting paragraph:

The carbon target could be even more ambitious: officials have aired a goal of a 40-45 per cent cut in carbon intensity by 2020, and the new five-year plan will reinforce that with an interim target.

 

To achieve these goals, China is preparing a big spending programme to boost clean energy. The new energy investment plan, which has been reported by official media but not yet formally approved, could see as much as Rmb5,000bn ($753bn) poured into developing alternative energy sources in the next decade.

[Balta1701]

Alternative Energy in China

 

You have to register to read, ubt here's an interesting paragraph:

Different ways to look at similar data:

China’s incentives to encourage low- carbon generation such as solar and wind power are almost triple those in the U.S., according to the Climate Institute.

...

Today’s study said that measures to promote clean energy or tax fossil fuels, when adjusted for purchasing power in the respective countries, amount to an implicit price of carbon of $29.31 in the U.K., $14.22 in China, $5.05 in the U.S., $3.11 in Japan, $1.38 in Australia and $0.72 in South Korea. The cross- country comparisons are “imperfect” because of differing circumstances, it said.

[Balta1701]

As always not conclusive of anything...but that storm that roared through the midwest yesterday wasn't just intense, it was ridiculous.

Yesterday a rapidly intensifying storm, a “bomb”, spun up directly over the MN Arrowhead, around mid afternoon a central pressure of 953 millibars was observed near Orr. That’s 28.14″ of mercury. Bigfork, MN reported 955 mb, about 28.22″ of mercury. The final (official) number may be closer to 28.20-28.22″, but at some point the number becomes academic. What is pretty much certain is that Tuesday’s incredible storm marks a new record for the lowest atmospheric pressure ever observed over the continental USA. That’s a lower air pressure than most hurricanes, which is hard to fathom.

The quote comes from Minnesota Meteorologist Paul Douglas. Weatherunderground has a much more extensive discussion.

[Balta1701]

Well, there's a dozen lawsuits.

Halliburton knew weeks before the fatal explosion of the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico that the cement mixture they planned to use to seal the bottom of the well was unstable but still went ahead with the job, the presidential commission investigating the accident said on Thursday.

[StrangeSox]

Well, there's a dozen lawsuits.

 

I thought that was known a long time ago, but that BP kept insisting to move ahead with the project? I remember reading about Haliburton engineers warning BP that all of their simulations showed it most likely was going to fail.

[StrangeSox]

Some interesting articles on Space Tourism and climate change, and on soot problems in general.

 

Space tourism to accelerate climate change

Climate change caused by black carbon, also known as soot, emitted during a decade of commercial space flight would be comparable to that from current global aviation, researchers estimate.

 

The findings, reported in a paper in press in Geophysical Research Letters1, suggest that emissions from 1,000 private rocket launches a year would persist high in the stratosphere, potentially altering global atmospheric circulation and distributions of ozone. The simulations show that the changes to Earth's climate could increase polar surface temperatures by 1 °C, and reduce polar sea ice by 5–15%.

 

This article contains a response indicating potentially unreliable/wrong data in the study.

 

But either way, soot is still pretty bad. 2003 paper by Hansen on soot.

[NorthSideSox72]

Some interesting articles on Space Tourism and climate change, and on soot problems in general.

 

Space tourism to accelerate climate change

 

 

This article contains a response indicating potentially unreliable/wrong data in the study.

 

But either way, soot is still pretty bad. 2003 paper by Hansen on soot.

Space elevator is the way to go, IMO.

 

[Balta1701]

Space elevator is the way to go, IMO.

As soon as I complete the Guillen/Stanton deal I'll get right on that.

[NorthSideSox72]

As soon as I complete the Guillen/Stanton deal I'll get right on that.

You joke, but I actually think it may be the best eventual model to go with. The technology is there now to do it. Its expensive to set up, but way, way, way, way cheaper than any rocket launch to operate.