71
   

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

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 03:41 pm
Quote:
LAS VEGAS (CNNMoney.com) -- So maybe it was part of his job to be paranoid, but former CIA head R. James Woolsey takes no comfort in the nation's reliance on oil and other fossil fuels.

Speaking at a reception at a renewable energy conference in Las Vegas co-hosted by the American Council on Renewable Energy, Woolsey told an attentive crowd that the country's heavy reliance on oil has the two-pronged effect of contributing to global warming and helping to finance global terrorism.


This AGW sky-is-falling paranoia is REALLY getting out of hand now.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 04:00 pm
I don't think so. I believe Woolsey's position is a reasonable one. We have the ability to develop indigenous technologies that can reduce our imports of increasingly expensive petroleum.

We should also maximize our development of our own natural petroleum reserves in Alaska, and off shore; invest in a new generation of nuclear power plants for low cost emissions free electrical power; and consider added taxes on petroleum products and coal to stimulate alternative sources.

We should avoid foolish things like involving government bureaucrats in the design of vehicles or power sources, or the direct subsidy of particular "favored" technologies. Bureaucracies aren't particularly creative, and subsidies, once established become permanent, remaining long after the reason for them is gone -- consider the Federal subsidy on cane sugar grown in this country.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 04:15 pm
His position on the prudence of moving over to other energy sources? Sure, it's reasonable. Perhaps the only reasonable opinion the war-monger has in his quivering quiver of opinions.

But I was pointing to the A in AGW.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 04:23 pm
A = atmospheric?? The AGW frenzy is interesting mostly as a psychological problem.

Woolsey isn't a bad guy. Not at all a war monger, by rational uses of the term. Moreover he appears to advocate freedom.

He is not at all the putatative authoritarian dictator that Al Gore would like to be.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 04:36 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
A = atmospheric?? The AGW frenzy is interesting mostly as a psychological problem.

Woolsey isn't a bad guy. Not at all a war monger, by rational uses of the term. Moreover he appears to advocate freedom.

He is not at all the putatative authoritarian dictator that Al Gore would like to be.


A = Anthropomorphic

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 04:39 pm
Thanks for the correction. My mistake.

It is still interesting mostly as a psychological phenomenon.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 04:41 pm
Well, what do you think? Frenzy or valid concern?

I got curious about that PETA thing this morning so did a bit of googling and here's the UN thing on meat:

Quote:
Livestock a major threat to environment
Remedies urgently needed


29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

Surprise!

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent - 18 percent - than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO's Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.

Long shadow

The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40 percent to global agricultural output. For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a source of renewable energy for draft and an essential source of organic fertilizer for their crops.

WHOLE UN FAO ARTICLE HERE

Then I found this link to Drudge on Tuesday:

Quote:

PETA TO AL GORE: YOU CAN'T BE A MEAT-EATING ENVIRONMENTALIST

LINK

So where is the Kyoto Accord on T-bone steaks?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 04:48 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
A = atmospheric?? The AGW frenzy is interesting mostly as a psychological problem.

Woolsey isn't a bad guy. Not at all a war monger, by rational uses of the term. Moreover he appears to advocate freedom.

He is not at all the putatative authoritarian dictator that Al Gore would like to be.


Cyclo has it.

You might want to research the organizations in which Woolsey is a senior member (not to mention his business interests) george. Or you could just google around and find the various countries that he figures ought to be bombed.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 04:48 pm
Cattle feed lots and meat processing plants produce huge waste streams that yield large quantities of methane -- which is, per pound, about 26 times more potent a greenhouse gas than is CO2. (This is a bit misleading in that methane does break down in the atmosphere and is far less persistent than CO2).

However this methane problem is easily remedied by anerobic containment systems that maximize and concentrate the methane production yielding a commercially useful fuel having about 75% the heating value (per pound) as natural gas. These plants consume large quantities of natural gas as a heat source and it is easily replaced by waste stream derived methane. My company does a fairly large business designing and constructing these plants.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 04:49 pm
blatham wrote:

You might want to research the organizations in which Woolsey is a senior member (not to mention his business interests) george. Or you could just google around and find the various countries that he figures ought to be bombed.


I know the guy and like him.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 04:56 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
My company does a fairly large business designing and constructing these plants.


There's another (seldom posting) A2K'er who's a director in a planning company which does the same.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 05:09 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
blatham wrote:

You might want to research the organizations in which Woolsey is a senior member (not to mention his business interests) george. Or you could just google around and find the various countries that he figures ought to be bombed.


I know the guy and like him.


That's completely irrelevant, george. People like you and I and walter and thomas and helen and many others find it very easy to like or admire or respect or enjoy the company of lots of different sorts of humans, humans for the most part being decent. But there is now perhaps a quarter of a million people dead and thousands of american kids maimed because guys you like (many of whom I probably would too) want to play napoleon.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 05:24 pm
while some scientists and others are still disputing the possible effects on global warming , the insurance industry seems to have quietly reviewed its vulnerability to possible claims caused by global warming .
and one thing i know : insurance companies do not like uncertainty and they like losing money even less (i ought to know , i worked for about 30 years in the insurance industry . while i worked in the life insurance industry , where the client is either alive or dead , even there risks were carefully evaluated ) .

after reading up on the subject , it's become clear that insurance companies have been adjusting their policies quietly to reduce their exposure to increased risk .
one of the things they have done is to decrease premiums for "green buildinds and projects" . this would likely increase the cost of doing business (insurance premiums) for "non-green" business .
so there is an incentive for business to "go green" .
if that doesn't do it , insurance companies will likely exclude risks from "global warming" and perhaps refuse to underwrite certain risks .

as anyone who has had to negotiate for a policy-renewal after a car accident has learned , insurance companies don't like to take on more risk - and if they do it , they'll want MORE MONEY !
imo insurance companies will play a quiet but influential role in dealing with global warming . residents in areas likely to flood are already having difficulty obtaining insurance .
hbg

i'm giving links to a few articles for anyone interested in the subject ;
perhaps some might find them of interest ;
feedback appreciated :

...BUSINESS WEEK ONLNE REPORTS

...A NEW COMBATANT AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING

...INSURANCE COMPANIES WARN OF COSTS OF GLOBAL WARMING

...INSURANCE COMPANIES TAKE ON GLOBAL WARMING
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 05:29 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Cattle feed lots and meat processing plants produce huge waste streams that yield large quantities of methane -- which is, per pound, about 26 times more potent a greenhouse gas than is CO2. (This is a bit misleading in that methane does break down in the atmosphere and is far less persistent than CO2).

However this methane problem is easily remedied by anerobic containment systems that maximize and concentrate the methane production yielding a commercially useful fuel having about 75% the heating value (per pound) as natural gas. These plants consume large quantities of natural gas as a heat source and it is easily replaced by waste stream derived methane. My company does a fairly large business designing and constructing these plants.


Interesting. I know a whole lot of folks who are producing the steers for those feedlots and I have some Arkansas relatives who are producing chickens--not the faux kind--at 144,000+ in a batch with turnover every six to eight weeks.

As it would be unconscionable to deprive developing countries of one of their primary food sources; i.e. hogs, cattle, sheep etc., and it is also wrong to keep them from using other resources to lift themselves out of crushing poverty, why isn't the UN pushing those plants in Third World Countries? Seems that would both reduce greenhouse gassesin a major way while providing profitable new industries for the people.

I was reading recently that somebody has offered a huge prize for the first patent on an atmospheric CO2 scrubber that would remove CO2 from the air. If greenhouse gasses are a significant and controllable problem, it seems that measures like these are the best way to approach it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 05:31 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

I was reading recently that somebody has offered a huge prize for the first patent on an atmospheric CO2 scrubber that would remove CO2 from the air. If greenhouse gasses are a significant and controllable problem, it seems that measures like these are the best way to approach it.


Perhaps I can submit my latest invention for this problem:

http://universe-review.ca/I10-22a-redwood.jpg

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 06:11 pm
Cyclo,
Cute!

Foxy,

He is right. CO2 scrubbing, in effect, means photosynthesis, and that takes a good deal of energy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 06:59 pm
I'll admit that's definitely the most sensible solution. Who does Cyclop contact to get it patented? (Probably nobody else will come up with anything that will work as well.)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Mar, 2007 07:08 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I'll admit that's definitely the most sensible solution. Who does Cyclop contact to get it patented? (Probably nobody else will come up with anything that will work as well.)


Monsanto, apparently.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:22 am
EU ministers deadlocked on binding target for green power

Quote:
Europe's bid for an historic deal to limit the impact of climate change hit a series of obstacles last night as the EU came under pressure to water down ambitious CO2 reduction targets.




Quote:
Renewables: the options

Biomass

The biodegradable element of agricultural, forestry or waste products. It can be used for heating, electricity production or transport fuels. These include bio-ethanol, which is an alternative to petrol. Algae is one of the promising experimental sources of biofuel.

Geothermal

This harnesses the natural heat within the Earth. The first attempt at generating electricity from geothermal steam was made in 1904. Though the potential is immense, only a tiny fraction has been utilised in locations where water or steam bring the energy from deep hot zones to the surface of the Earth.

Solar Photovoltaic

The use of solar or photovoltaic cells to convert light energy into electrical power. Some estimates suggest that by 2020 solar electricity can serve 1 billion people and that the market can grow 35 per cent from 2005 until 2010 with support.

Solar Thermal

Based on the principle that the power of the sun can be used to heat up water. Solar thermal technologies can be used for a wide range of applications like domestic hot water and heating in residential and commercial buildings, solar-assisted cooling, industrial process heat and desalination.

Hydropower

Uses water power to generate energy. Across the globe it accounts for no less than 17 per cent of electricity, making it the most important form of renewable energy. Small projects produce about 1-2 per cent, with Europe second only behind Asia in its exploitation.

Wind Power

A modern wind turbine is designed to produce electricity whenever enough wind is available. They can operate continuously with low maintenance, and some 120,000 hours of active operation can be expected over a lifetime of 20 years. Wind farms can be as small as a single turbine.
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Mar, 2007 01:32 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Aetu6MQJuI

Very interesting documentary on Channel 4 yesterday; it is apparent to me that this climate change thing has replaced religion as the moral truth of the 21st century.

I'm not a scientist but the people on the programme were; continuing agnostic and just waiting and seeing. I save energy because that's what I do, like saving money and not splurging.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/18/2024 at 05:05:09