74
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 07:32 am
Neither have I - but I do remember prices here at around 25 Pf/l when I was a child :wink:

(Though on the other side: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Treibstoffpreise-de-2005.png)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 07:47 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Neither have I - but I do remember prices here at around 25 Pf/l when I was a child :wink:

(Though on the other side: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Treibstoffpreise-de-2005.png)


After some googling, I found this table at the Department of energy. It shows the development of American gas prices for about the same period as your graph. From eyeballing the data, it seems that the American price pattern in constant dollars was similar to Germany's in constant euros. Perhaps our fuel tax rates have always been much higher than America's.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 07:49 am
Might be, yes.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 08:48 am
old europe wrote:

Competition did lead to improvements in cars, but these improvements had often enough nothing to do with fuel efficiency.

Competition always leads to improvement, and where fuel prices are more pertinent, as more recently, it will lead to many more improvements in that arena. Economics 101, oe.

Quote:

I would even argue that opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the wake of Katrina or during Operation Desert Storm (or, in fact, establishing the SPR at all) are rather examples of subsidizing and supporting an industry in order to avoid improvements on fuel efficiency.

I agree the strategic reserves have been misused in my opinion and should only be used in the most dire national emergencies, but then again they really have minimal impact on supply anyway when used for political purposes. They give the appearance of a president doing something about price and supply so as to score a point or two with people, but that is all it amounts to. I do think they are a good idea to have however.

Quote:

If you are arguing for a free market economy and against government intervention to achieve improvements, you would have to oppose the SPR and its misuse in order to keep gas prices down.


I think the most legitimate use of government is to protect the people, so in a time of war I think it is a legitimate use of government to have the SPR as a backup if war should break out. The legitimate purpose of government being defense also dictates we do not subcontract out the main part of our military forces, although the military of course procures much of its supply from private contractors and some functions are also contracted out.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 08:59 am
Thomas wrote:
Have you ever been to the USA? Have you noticed that the cars in American streets are much larger there than in Europe? Maybe that's because European governments have made fuel more expensive that American governments have. Maybe Europen drivers reacted to these price increases by demanding more fuel-efficient cars.


I've noticed that on average, cars in the U.S. are bigger, England is a pretty big step down, but some other European countries may be smaller yet. Fuel prices have been a major factor. A second factor is SPACE. Europeans are accustomed to smaller areas, higher populations per those areas, and so the mindset applies not only to housing, but to cars and transportation. The U.S. is very spread out for the most part, and mass transit simply was not practical during the historical development of the country, and still is very impractical except for the largest metropolitan areas, and people became more accustomed to traveling longer distances by private vehicle, thus breeding a different mindset concerning size of vehicles.

Things are changing in the U.S. however, and there is increasing pressure on manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient cars. Hybrids have been a pretty big success. High gasoline prices are the worst thing that can happen in terms of current situations, but at the same time it is the best thing that can happen in terms of the future by being a catalyst for change.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 10:33 am
Okie, here is some information on solar power and decentralization that is possible with it.

Please keep in mind that some of these systems are expensive today, but can be made far cheaper through mass utilization in a relatively short period of time; think about, say CD players. The first ones where murderous expensive and didn't work well, then they had major factories built to produce them, ten years later they are dirt cheap.

To begin, Wikipedia on Solar Power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power

Here's a blog project showing how one man converted his house to solar power (for the most part, heh)

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bgoodsel/solar/blog.htm

Here's the Wikipedia on Solar Shingles - note that the nice thing about this project is the scalability. You could budget 500-1k per year for installing solar panels, and in 5-10 years have 50% of your energy coming from your roof, and that's not even counting increases in technology during that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_shingle

Here is the American Solar Energy Society, who can give you information on Federal and State tax breaks which can help pay for solar instilation:

http://www.ases.org/

Here are a few articles on successes in advancing Solar Plastic, which can be used to make literally anything:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

An article on using Dirty Silicon to make Solar panels that work just as well as Clean silicon (cheaper!)

http://www.physorg.com/news5831.html

Here's an article that talks about using Fiber Optics to pipe sunlight indoors. According to the writers, some 30% of electricity used by the US is for lighting up indoor areas during the daytime; this could help alleviate much of that cost.

http://pesn.com/2005/07/27/9600139_Fiber_Optics_Bring_Sun_Indoors/

Here's how to make your south-facing windows into Solar Heaters:

http://www.jrwhipple.com/sr/solheater.html

And there's so much more out there.... solar water heaters, solar water pumps, solar stoves, solar panel add-ons for hybrid cars... I could literally post links all day about it.

One of the disadvantages of solar, of course, is the high initial cost. While we have seen these costs come down in the last ten years, they haven't come down far enough for a large amount of people to jump on the bandwagon. Many places have rebates that one can get from the gov't to help pay for the instillation, but I think the advent of larger-scale production and cheaper techniques for making the Photovoltaic cells will improve this dramatically.

And think about what we could do if we decided to make it a priority as a people! There are smaller countries out there, such as Scandanavian countries and Japan, which serve as test beds for rolling out new technologies in a highly industrialized society. Japan plans on getting 50% of their power from solar by 2020, and it looks like they are going to make it. Now, that may be overly ambitious for the US, but as little as 10 or 15 percent would make a gigantic difference in terms of emissions and pollutants put out by our conventional power generation.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 03:39 pm
Water for millions at risk as glaciers melt away

In August, a report from 20 UK-based environment and development groups warned that Andean glaciers are melting so fast that some are expected to disappear within 15-25 years

This would deny major cities water supplies and put populations and food supplies at risk in Colombia, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and Bolivia.


http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1892518,00.html
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 02:13 am
Lord Oxburgh thinks it's a great business op, global warming. Not all doom and gloom.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 08:30 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Okie, here is some information on solar power and decentralization that is possible with it.


Cyclops, just to let you know I haven't forgotten our discussion. I just haven't had time to read all of your information yet, but I intend to and get back to you on it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 11:31 am
Quote:
Last Updated: Thursday, 12 October 2006, 16:54 GMT 17:54 UK

UK planning law on climate change

A climate change bill which could see regular targets put in place to cut UK carbon dioxide emissions is being considered by the government.

An independent system to gauge progress in reducing greenhouse gases is also likely to be included, Environment Secretary David Miliband told the BBC.

The move follows a campaign by Friends of the Earth - supported by the Tories and Liberal Democrats - for such a law.

A recent study said the world was the warmest it had been for 12,000 years.

Pace of change

The climate change bill is likely to be included in next month's Queen's Speech.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said a proposal, from Friends of the Earth, that ministers should be fined for missing environmental targets, would not be included.

Last month, Mr Miliband said people "should be scared" by global warming and that more were recognising that "something funny is going on with the weather".

He has warned that the pace of action has to be much faster or carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 will be 137% higher than in 2003.

Meanwhile, environment minister Ben Bradshaw met supermarket bosses on Thursday to discuss the best way of reducing the amount of plastic carrier bags given away by supermarkets.

He would not rule out imposing new laws if retailers did not agree to a voluntary code.
Source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 01:16 pm
Weebles wobble but never fall over. Apparently so does the Earth. From the New York Times today, one more possible piece in the puzzle:

October 12, 2006
Study Links Extinction Cycles to Changes in Earth's Orbit and Tilt
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
If rodents in Spain are any guide, periodic changes in Earth's orbit may account for the apparent regularity with which new species of mammals emerge and then go extinct, scientists are reporting today.

It so happens, the paleontologists say, that variations in the course Earth travels around the Sun and in the tilt of its axis are associated with episodes of global cooling. Their new research on the fossil record shows that the cyclical pattern of these phenomena corresponds to species turnover in rodents and probably other mammal groups as well.

In a report appearing today in the journal Nature, Dutch and Spanish scientists led by Jan A. van Dam of Utrecht University in the Netherlands say the "astronomical hypothesis for species turnover provides a crucial missing piece in the puzzle of mammal species- and genus-level evolution."

In addition, the researchers write, the hypothesis "offers a plausible explanation for the characteristic duration of more or less 2.5 million years of the mean species life span in mammals."

Dr. van Dam and his colleagues studied the fossil record of rats, mice and other rodents over the last 22 million years in central Spain. The fossils are numerous and show a largely uninterrupted record of the rise and fall of individual species. Other scientists say rodents, thanks to their large numbers, are commonly used in studies of such evolutionary transitions.

As the scientists pored over some 80,000 isolated molars, the most distinct markers of different species, the patterns of turnovers emerged. They seemed often to occur in clusters, which seemed unrelated to biology. And they occurred in cycles of about 2.5 million and 1 million years.

The longer-term cycle, the scientists determined, peaks when Earth's orbit is closer to being a perfect circle. The short cycle corresponds to shifts in the tilt of Earth's axis. The "pulses of turnover," the scientists determined, occurred mainly at times when the different cycles left Earth a colder world.

Previous studies have invoked climate change to explain mammalian species turnover, but they have been challenged or only partly supported by other research.

Paleontologists and mammal experts not involved in the research said the findings and interpretations were provocative and likely to inspire other investigations. One objective, they said, was to extend the study to small mammals beyond Spain, preferably to other continents.

"It's very intriguing," said John J. Flynn, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. "But this will be controversial. Any time you invoke periodic and external forces to explain patterns in biology and climate, it stirs up controversy."

Dr. Flynn said some recent research had led other scientists to conclude that there was no strong correlation between climate changes and species turnover.

While scientists go off looking for fossil rodents outside Spain, there is no apparent cause for concern that another species turnover is nigh.

Dr. van Dam said the 2.5-million-year cycle "has entered the critical stage corresponding to a relatively circular orbit." But any period of high turnover may be tens of thousands of years away, he said. And it may be good news for both mice and men that the climate system has changed significantly in the last three million years.

Ever since the establishment of the northern ice cap, Dr. van Dam said, the climate system has been reacting differently, as reflected in the succession of ice ages. "So it is not easy to predict what the 2.5-million-year cycle will do," he said.
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 02:05 pm
The report in Nature (11.10.2006): Earth's orbit linked to extinctions.

Abstract: Long-period astronomical forcing of mammal turnover
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 03:09 am
Now here's a more optimistic take on global warming from today's Independent newspaper:

Climate change market could be worth £30bn to UK business

Combating global warming is not only affordable but could create a climate change market worth £30bn to British businesses over the next decade, says a report funded by the oil giant Shell.

The cost of tackling climate change in the UK by 2010 would be equivalent to just 0.3 per cent of GDP, according to the Shell Springboard report.

Globally, concerted action to stop the rise in greenhouse gas emissions could create a worldwide market worth $1 trillion in the first five years alone.

In the UK, the climate change market is growing principally because of government action - for instance through the tightening of building standards, the extension of renewable energy schemes and measures to tackle the energy efficiency of the housing stock and encourage more environmentally friendly fuels.

The report, by Vivid Economics, says the biggest opportunity for small and medium-sized companies will come from new building regulations for commercial and industrial use, which will generate a market worth £950m by 2010. Other big markets will include renewable electricity, worth £800m, biofuels for road transport, £500m, and domestic energy efficiency, £400m.

The Shell report is also full of examples of the way in which private enterprise is driving the climate-change market. It cites the example of HeliSwirl Technologies, a spin-off from Imperial College London. Scientists there noticed what Leonardo da Vinci had observed 500 years ago - that blood travels around the body in a spiral motion, thus reducing bubbles and clots - and decided to adapt that. The end-product was a new industrial fluid technology that cuts friction in pipework and avoids the build-up of sediment, allowing pumps to be smaller, so that less energy is used.

Lord Oxburgh, the former chairman of Shell UK who was a rector of ICL and is chairman of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, said: "The urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions offers opportunities to the nimble. There is now scope for a wide range of devices and services, which a decade ago would have made no economic sense, and for which there would have been no demand."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 11:12 am
Clary wrote:
Now here's a more optimistic take on global warming from today's Independent newspaper:

Climate change market could be worth £30bn to UK business

Combating global warming is not only affordable but could create a climate change market worth £30bn to British businesses over the next decade, says a report funded by the oil giant Shell.

The cost of tackling climate change in the UK by 2010 would be equivalent to just 0.3 per cent of GDP, according to the Shell Springboard report.

Globally, concerted action to stop the rise in greenhouse gas emissions could create a worldwide market worth $1 trillion in the first five years alone.

In the UK, the climate change market is growing principally because of government action - for instance through the tightening of building standards, the extension of renewable energy schemes and measures to tackle the energy efficiency of the housing stock and encourage more environmentally friendly fuels.

The report, by Vivid Economics, says the biggest opportunity for small and medium-sized companies will come from new building regulations for commercial and industrial use, which will generate a market worth £950m by 2010. Other big markets will include renewable electricity, worth £800m, biofuels for road transport, £500m, and domestic energy efficiency, £400m.

The Shell report is also full of examples of the way in which private enterprise is driving the climate-change market. It cites the example of HeliSwirl Technologies, a spin-off from Imperial College London. Scientists there noticed what Leonardo da Vinci had observed 500 years ago - that blood travels around the body in a spiral motion, thus reducing bubbles and clots - and decided to adapt that. The end-product was a new industrial fluid technology that cuts friction in pipework and avoids the build-up of sediment, allowing pumps to be smaller, so that less energy is used.

Lord Oxburgh, the former chairman of Shell UK who was a rector of ICL and is chairman of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, said: "The urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions offers opportunities to the nimble. There is now scope for a wide range of devices and services, which a decade ago would have made no economic sense, and for which there would have been no demand."


Yeah but most of the AGW advocates on this thread discount any research or opinion of the oil companies and most have said or suggested all oil company opinion/research is an intentional attempt to deny Global Warming, especially AGW, and/or distort the true picture.

Do you suppose they'll accept oil company opinion/research that actually supports their side of the argument?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 10:33 pm
Clary wrote:
Now here's a more optimistic take on global warming from today's Independent newspaper:

Climate change market could be worth £30bn to UK business

Combating global warming is not only affordable but could create a climate change market worth £30bn to British businesses over the next decade, says a report funded by the oil giant Shell.


As MiniTax pointed out recently, if we hired brigades of people to go around breaking windows all over the country, we could indeed stimulate the glass repair industry. Do you advocate that, Clary?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 11:04 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Okie, here is some information on solar power and decentralization that is possible with it.


I finally had time to check out all your links, and I read parts of all of them. No arguments here, and as I've said many times, I am totally in favor of innovation. Now that private enterprise is attacking the problem, I think we are going to see progress, and occasionally another breakthrough. If oil continues to climb in price, and all indications are that it will, I see no reason for alternatives to quit expanding. The question is, will they expand much faster than predicted?

So my basic point has been that if you take current predictions by the people in the energy field, alternative energy will not grow fast enough to avert Al Gore's doomsday scenario. Personally, I don't care about that because I think his predictions are way overstated, if not completely wrong, so I think the best course is to continue to do what we do best, and that is let competition and the free market solve the problem. It always has in the past.

You still have to remember the vast reserves of oil shale and tar sand that can prolong the use of oil for a very long time, longer than you and I will be around, if it wins out in price over alternatives.

Pardon me for saying the same thing over and over in different ways, Cyclops. Thanks for the research. I do think solar has the most potential as compared to other alternatives currently on the table, although wind is growing pretty fast in some areas and can serve as an important although minor supplement to the grid. And I like the idea of de-centralizing the power generation, but we will need to figure out how to get the capital cost down for homeowners.
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 02:45 am
In response to okie, I am regarding the windows as already broken; it seems there is very little we can do to stop global warming, whether it's mostly manmade or mostly natural. Let's just put our energy into adaptation and creative thinking rather than just trying to turn the clock back. Personally, I think America is hugely wrong to use so much energy, but it does, and if the opinions here are typical, greens and guzzlers wrangling won't help, and certainly won't get legislation in place and enforceable.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 04:31 am
foxfyre wrote
Quote:
Yeah but most of the AGW advocates on this thread discount any research or opinion of the oil companies and most have said or suggested all oil company opinion/research is an intentional attempt to deny Global Warming, especially AGW, and/or distort the true picture.

Do you suppose they'll accept oil company opinion/research that actually supports their side of the argument?


That the energy industries (and friends) have spent many hundreds of millions of dollars (which you ended up funding) with the clear intent of suppressing scientific findings and citizen/government opinions/policies unfavorable to their marketing strategies is factual and documented.

But the remarks at issue are, as clary says answering okie, in relation to the opportunities presented once the windows are broken and once it is admitted/confronted that they are broken.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 06:44 am
Quote:
Fires and worst drought in 100 years wake Australia up to the reality of climate change

Australia is confronting its worst drought in a century with rampant fires devastating agricultural areas, rivers drying up, crops failing, and farmers forced to sell off their livestock.

The bushfire season has begun months early and the government has pledged financial aid for despairing farmers, already laden with debt after five straight years of drought. Some may earn no income at all this year, and there are fears that the suicide rate in the countryside, which is already high, will soar further.

The federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, said the countryside was facing a "rural recession".

But some politicians and environmental groups say that sympathetic words are not enough. They point to the increased frequency and severity of drought-causing El Niño weather patterns, attributed to global warming, and to Australia's leading role in poisoning the Earth's atmosphere with greenhouse gases.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article1870837.ece
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 10:02 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Okie, here is some information on solar power and decentralization that is possible with it.


I finally had time to check out all your links, and I read parts of all of them. No arguments here, and as I've said many times, I am totally in favor of innovation. Now that private enterprise is attacking the problem, I think we are going to see progress, and occasionally another breakthrough. If oil continues to climb in price, and all indications are that it will, I see no reason for alternatives to quit expanding. The question is, will they expand much faster than predicted?

So my basic point has been that if you take current predictions by the people in the energy field, alternative energy will not grow fast enough to avert Al Gore's doomsday scenario. Personally, I don't care about that because I think his predictions are way overstated, if not completely wrong, so I think the best course is to continue to do what we do best, and that is let competition and the free market solve the problem. It always has in the past.

You still have to remember the vast reserves of oil shale and tar sand that can prolong the use of oil for a very long time, longer than you and I will be around, if it wins out in price over alternatives.

Pardon me for saying the same thing over and over in different ways, Cyclops. Thanks for the research. I do think solar has the most potential as compared to other alternatives currently on the table, although wind is growing pretty fast in some areas and can serve as an important although minor supplement to the grid. And I like the idea of de-centralizing the power generation, but we will need to figure out how to get the capital cost down for homeowners.


Sure, Okie, but the free market has no regard whatsoever for the cleanliness of our environment.

Without any discussion of global warming whatsoever, think about the pollution caused by buring oil and coal at a non-stop pace 24/7/365. The answer is, lots of pollution. This pollution has been shown to be quite inimical to human life, in the areas where it collects in large concentrations.

My whole contention is that we can determine that having a clean environment is as much of a goal as maximizing profit. That's the only way things will get clean, if you let the market decide; random maximization of profit. Why do we have to rely upon that to clean our house up? It's ridiculous, we don't. All we have to do is decide that cleanliness is a priority of ours, along with profit, and we can have this thing licked quickly.

If it happens to help the Climate Change problem at the same time, more better.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 03:14:01