71
   

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

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 12:25 pm
Over on the Obama thread, there has been some discussion of Barack Obama's energy policies. These are pertinent for this thread as he, the presumptive Democratic nominee for 2008, could be President for the next four years and could be pushing such proposals:


SOME BARACK OBAMA ENERGY PROPOSALS:

Senator Obama. . .

--Calls for cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Would accomplish this through a cap-and-trade system that would auction off 100 percent of emissions permits, making polluters pay for the CO2 they emit.


--Would channel revenue raised from auctioning emissions permits -- between $30 billion and $50 billion a year -- toward developing and deploying clean energy technology, creating "green jobs," and helping low-income Americans afford higher energy bills.


--Calls for 25 percent of U.S. electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025, and for 30 percent of the federal government's electricity to come from renewables by 2020.


--Proposes investing $150 billion over 10 years in R&D for renewables, biofuels, efficiency, "clean coal," and other clean tech.


--Calls for improving energy efficiency in the U.S. 50 percent by 2030.


--Calls for 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the U.S. each year by 2022 and 60 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the U.S. each year by 2030.


--Calls for all new buildings in the U.S. to be carbon neutral by 2030.


--Calls for reducing U.S. oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels a day, by 2030.


--Introduced the Health Care for Hybrids Act, which would have the federal government help cover health-care costs for retired U.S. autoworkers in exchange for domestic auto companies investing at least 50 percent of the savings into production of more fuel-efficient vehicles.


--Supports raising fuel-economy standards for automobiles to 40 miles per gallon and light trucks to 32 mpg by 2020.


--Supports a phaseout of incandescent light bulbs by 2014.


--Cosponsor of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act. After being badgered by MoveOn and other progressives over the issue, he "clarified" his position by saying he would support liquefied coal only if it emitted 20 percent less carbon over its lifecycle than conventional fuels.


An ambitious agenda for sure and there are some things with which I think most of us can agree and some other things that I think bear careful scrutiny before we buy into them.
LINK
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 12:26 pm
So who do you want to spend the money? The government? They are hardly able to produce anything meaningful. Universities? Don't hold your breath, they are too busy having sex and smoking dope. That really only leaves private enterprise and don't you think that the first company to produce a solution will be raking in the bucks? Just today I was listening to NPR about a company using yeast to grow bio-ethanol through genetic engineering.

Private enterprise is the only way any alternative to fossil fuels will be produced. The government throwing money at the problem ain't gonna do it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 12:29 pm
Quote:
Universities? Don't hold your breath, they are too busy having sex and smoking dope.


Spoken like one who has no idea what universities are like whatsoever. Truly idiotic.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 12:33 pm
For comparison, John McCain "on the issues'

FactCheck: Oil independence will take 25 years, not 5 years. (Dec 2007)
Climate change is real; nuclear power is solution. (Oct 2007)
Public pressure on oil industry to invest in alternatives. (Oct 2007)
FactCheck: nuclear plants do emit no GHGs, but do have waste. (Jun 2007)
Reinvest oil profits in nuclear power. (Jun 2007)
Ethanol made no sense in `05 but with $60/bbl it makes sense. (May 2007)
Strength Clean Air & Water Acts; but not Kyoto. (Jan 2000)
Supports alternative fuels, emission controls, & CWA. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Supports immediate reductions in greenhouse gases. (Sep 1998)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

***********************************************

Recap of his speech on energy this past week:
Quote:
W hether or not his goals are ambitious enough, John McCain made it clear Monday in Portland that he will be the anti-George W. Bush when it comes to global warming and alternative energy policy.

"I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears," the presumptive Republican nominee said to an audience of journalists and Vestas employees. "I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto."

If he is elected president, McCain promised to propose a cap-and-trade system designed to ratchet down the volume of carbon emissions, which contribute to greenhouse gases. He also enthusiastically endorsed nuclear power -- though he barely mentioned such "well-known drawbacks" as the problem of how to safely store spent nuclear fuel. As a guest of Vestas, he spoke warmly of wind power and went on to mention solar power, fuel cells and cleaner-burning fuels.


He vowed to cooperate with other nations to help big polluters such as China and India reduce their emissions. He promised that federal purchasing practices will reflect his administration's "low-carbon" policies. He said his energy policies could benefit rural America, which could store carbon in the soils of farms.

His speech was immediately assailed by critics from Hillary Clinton to conservation groups, who said that McCain isn't aggressive enough in seeking to reduce greenhouse gases or in developing a credible plan to wean Americans from fossil fuels.

But what's noteworthy now is that McCain has joined his Democratic rivals in pronouncing global warming a serious problem that requires prompt and concerted action and international cooperation.

After months of jogging toward the right, so as to outflank such Republican rivals as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani, McCain on Monday angled sharply toward the middle of the field, closer to the Democrats' position. He even went so far as to applaud the leadership of Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, the Democrat who introduced Vestas America President Jens Soby, who introduced McCain.

Fights will surely follow about how a cap-and-trade system is constructed, what safeguards are needed to expand nuclear power production, how and whether to subsidize the development of alternative energy technologies and how to engage China and India on global warming. But for one day, at least, McCain's new tune played well in Portland.

LINK
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 02:41 pm
Quote:
If he is elected president, McCain promised to propose a cap-and-trade system designed to ratchet down the volume of carbon emissions, which contribute to greenhouse gases.

Man, Americans have the choice for the next presidency between an arbishop and a cardinal (unless that ends up to be mother Theresa) of the AGW church.
Not much choice for a country of presumable over-abundance http://images.forum-auto.com/images/perso/7/error404.gif
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 03:55 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Quote:
If he is elected president, McCain promised to propose a cap-and-trade system designed to ratchet down the volume of carbon emissions, which contribute to greenhouse gases.

Man, Americans have the choice for the next presidency between an arbishop and a cardinal (unless that ends up to be mother Theresa) of the AGW church.
Not much choice for a country of presumable over-abundance http://images.forum-auto.com/images/perso/7/error404.gif


Yep. What do you think? You have room for an aging part time insurance specialist, part time teacher/mentor in France somewhere?
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 05:47 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

Yep. What do you think? You have room for an aging part time insurance specialist, part time teacher/mentor in France somewhere?

Yes I have. But I wouldn't recommend it to my worse ennemy.
Here, we already have to cope with the communist popes of the AGW church (Chirac once told the UN that the world needs "a global governance" to tackle global warming) http://images.forum-auto.com/images/perso/10/matmax.gif
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 05:54 pm
Mon dieu, quelle surprise: a member of the French conservative party turns out to be a commie .... at least Obama is a "left".
(However, McCain seems to have said something similar, though not [yet] at the UN assembly.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 05:54 pm
Mon dieu, quelle surprise: a member of the French conservative party turns out to be a commie .... at least Obama is a "left".
(However, McCain seems to have said something similar, though not [yet] at the UN assembly.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 05:58 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Mon dieu, quelle surprise: a member of the French conservative party turns out to be a commie .... at least Obama is a "left".
(However, McCain seems to have said something similar, though not [yet] at the UN assembly.
No no, no surprise, Walter. It's well known that a conservative French is at the far left of an American liberal :wink:

Proof of that : Kouchner is a pure socialist and he is French foreign affairs minister for our president Sarkozy, a conservative, who accessorily has vowed to "protect the climate" (no less, man) when he began his presidency.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 06:34 pm
miniTAX wrote:

Proof of that : Kouchner is a pure socialist and he is French foreign affairs minister for our president Sarkozy, a conservative, who accessorily has vowed to "protect the climate" (no less, man) when he began his presidency.


I'd thought that Kouchner became a member of the French government because they needed some gastroenterologistic advice? :wink:
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 02:40 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'd thought that Kouchner became a member of the French government because they needed some gastroenterologistic advice? :wink:

I'm afraid what the French government needs most is advice on obesity (especially government obesity) and cancer (especially social welfare cancer).
But well, we digress. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 03:23 am
I just saw a report on oil by Todd Benjamin of CNN. Seems I'm not the only pessimist when it comes to future oil prices

Quote:
I've been accused by some of you of being too pessimistic, of having a dark cloud hanging over me, when talking about the economy and the credit crunch. But I don't make up the data, I just report and interpret it. I have been bearish and I continue to be bearish.


Bearish of course refers to the economy. Oil futures are trading at $140 Dec 2008.

This really really is not rocket science. Supply cant meet demand, not because Big Oil needs more incentives to find more oil....(how much more incentive at $130 pbl?) but because mother earth cant yield it. Supply has peaked in the N Sea and Mexico. Production is declining in Russia. Only 20% of the worlds oil now comes from non OPEC countries. And they (OPEC) have been lying about their resources. A greater and greater percentage of the worlds oil will come from just 5 OPEC countries in future, Iraq Saudi Arabia UAE Kuwait and Iran. And the biggest field of all Ghawar in Saudi is now depleting. They're getting more out by increasing water injection. When Bush pleaded with OPEC to increase production they said they saw no need to do so. Saw no need eh? Another lie. They cant increase production. The taps are at full bore and still not enough flows out.


So you flat earth economists say Ok lets just wait until the price encourages people to find more oil. Where? Dont you think Big Oil has been looking? Its a question of geology, not economics. God didnt put enough of the black stuff in the ground.

So ok lets just wait until someone invents something in place of oil. We've been working on fusion power for 50 years, surely its nearly ready? Or how about cold fusion, you know Fleischmann and Ponds with their beaker of water and palladium electrodes...it must be a conspiracy by the oil companies to keep such inventions suppressed no?

Here's a better idea. Scoop up He3 from the surface of the moon. Bring it back to earth, add a little deuterium from sea water and there you have it, abundant energy and no pollution. Now lets see, how long is it since Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon? Or was that just another conspiracy?

We need something to substitute for increasingly scarce oil supplies NOW not in 40 years. America importing 60% of its daily oil needs is getting desperate. But then the US has the worlds most powerful military. See any connection here?

Oil is a blessing and a curse. Its wonderfully useful stuff. Its catapulted the West to a fantastically high standard of living. And America is fighting to keep it that way. Al Qaeda see it somewhat differently. On top of all this the billions of tonnes of carbon which have been sequestrated in the earth over hundreds of millions of years and which we have liberated in a blink of the eye is screwing up the atmosphere and the world climate. Give me reasons to be optimistic and I will.

Meanwhile I'm off on my bike.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 09:11 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
I.........Supply has peaked in the N Sea and Mexico. Production is declining in Russia. Only 20% of the worlds oil now comes from non OPEC countries. And they (OPEC) have been lying about their resources. A greater and greater percentage of the worlds oil will come from just 5 OPEC countries in future, Iraq Saudi Arabia UAE Kuwait and Iran. And the biggest field of all Ghawar in Saudi is now depleting. They're getting more out by increasing water injection. .


Ghawar and nearby fields have been using massive water injections for 30 years that I know of and possibly longer.

And yes, the tales of the OPEC reserves do seem related to the tales of the thousand and one nights, but that's due to the fact that the cartel dictates production limits to its members as percentages of their own reserves estimates. Not unreasonably the members inflate their numbers for their recoverable reserves so as to increase their production limits.

It's not just OPEC, though: Royal Dutch-Shell has admitted inflating its own estimates of recoverable reserves in order to raise capital for drilling test wells - a practice not unknown to other oil companies in the private sector.

And you really, really, don't want to know about the nationalized oil companies of Venezuela, Brazil, or Iran.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 09:12 am
High Seas wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
I.........Supply has peaked in the N Sea and Mexico. Production is declining in Russia. Only 20% of the worlds oil now comes from non OPEC countries. And they (OPEC) have been lying about their resources. A greater and greater percentage of the worlds oil will come from just 5 OPEC countries in future, Iraq Saudi Arabia UAE Kuwait and Iran. And the biggest field of all Ghawar in Saudi is now depleting. They're getting more out by increasing water injection. .


Ghawar and nearby fields have been using massive water injections for 30 years that I know of and possibly longer.

And yes, the tales of the OPEC reserves do seem related to the tales of the thousand and one nights, but that's due to the fact that the cartel dictates production limits to its members as percentages of their own reserves estimates. Not unreasonably the members inflate their numbers for their recoverable reserves so as to increase their production quotas.

It's not just OPEC, though: Royal Dutch-Shell has admitted inflating its own estimates of recoverable reserves in order to raise capital for drilling test wells - a practice not unknown to other oil companies in the private sector.

And you really, really, don't want to know about the nationalized oil companies of Venezuela, Brazil, or Iran.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 10:42 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
I.........Supply has peaked in the N Sea and Mexico. Production is declining in Russia. Only 20% of the worlds oil now comes from non OPEC countries. And they (OPEC) have been lying about their resources. A greater and greater percentage of the worlds oil will come from just 5 OPEC countries in future, Iraq Saudi Arabia UAE Kuwait and Iran. And the biggest field of all Ghawar in Saudi is now depleting. They're getting more out by increasing water injection.


Why do people keep repeating such nonsense ?!
Ghawar water injection rate less than 40%. That sounds "massive" but guess what, the mean water injection rate of world wells is 75%. And here in France, most wells rates are more than 95% and still yield profitable oil.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 10:46 am
There has been an interesting press conference this afternoon, Germany, by the (more conservative) "Energy Watch Group", presenting their new study "The decline of oil supply and the consequences".

It's not out in the English translation yet (English homepage: http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Startseite.14+M5d637b1e38d.0.html ), but basically their numbers re future oil pruduction are ways lower than those by International Energy Agencency.

Many of us will live long enough to get a proof about who was right ...
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 10:54 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Many of us will live long enough to get a proof about who was right ...

Walter, we already have plenty of proof that doomsters have repeatedly been wrong. The bet is long over.

http://trendlines.ca/TrendlinesPealOilDepletionChartScenariosbyColinCampbellASPO1989-2008-80204.gif
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 10:59 am
miniTAX wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Many of us will live long enough to get a proof about who was right ...

Walter, we already have plenty of proof that doomsters have repeatedly been wrong. The bet is long over.

http://trendlines.ca/TrendlinesPealOilDepletionChartScenariosbyColinCampbellASPO1989-2008-80204.gif


To back up your graph, here is that history of past oil supply prognostications again:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/index.html#a
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 11:41 am
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.


THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS
Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

111.
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada and former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. "I started with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself," Murty explained on August 17, 2006. "I switched to the other side in the early 1990s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously," Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.73 seconds on 10/12/2024 at 10:20:03