Climate Change must be tackled NOW

I'm sorry, I assumed you mentioned Peru and lumber to indicate the tendency towards short-sighted action in the name of survival which happens sometimes with humans. My point was that many other humans (or more to the point, human societies) have learned some lessons from such behavior and do at least attempt to act within limits that will allow for perpetuation into the foreseeable future.

I'm not sure how people being fat ties in here, but I'll grant you we American's are some real fatsos.

I will only say this once, but Mcgentrix is right. Provide our entire private automobile fleet with clean motor engines -- the technologies are there -- and you're homefree. Get automobile constructors to release vero low or zero GHG-emission models and the greenhouse effect would decrease with roughly 40%. The stability of our weather conditions would be assured in the long term.

There is no magic wand, cicerone, you're correct. How fast this becomes real is up to the didactic actions we effectuate on our social and corporate structures. That's, indeed, all we can do -- get involved.

But the world is what we make of it. This even happens to be the thing the United States are so good at!

I hate to be a bother, but I don't see anywhere in this discussion where McG made the statement you seem to be agreeing with here. I see where he said he is doing his part by having chosen to purchase a hybrid car, but--and forgive me if I'm wrong here--you seem to be turning that simple statement of personal commitment into a call to force companies to produce that which most consumers currently are not clamoring to buy.

Or did I read you wrong?

I was referring to his words

Yes, the technology is here - as far as hybrid cars are concerned. And repeating what Scrat said, we don't see very many clamoring to buy them. That would be only "one" of the problems. I can probably tick off a hundred more, but I'm sure you can use your own imagination for that. c.i.

BTW, some in our neighborhood are using solar panels, but they are a very small minority. When and how do we get more people to use solar panels? c.i.

But, if people did clamor for them, then the auto-makers would have to start making more hybrid auto's and coming up with innovations to stay competitive. Just do your part. Next time you buy a car, get a hybrid and encourage others to do the same.

Wolf, I printed that out so it is in hardcopy now...

Ah...

Then by:

You meant for individuals to influence automakers through lobbying and purchasing choice? If so, then I agree this would be an excellent way to proceed.

"Purchase" is the key. How do we influence the buyers? Anybody for a humvey or SUV? c.i.

Scrat,

that is indeed what I'm advocating: to respect the dynamics of the free market and let the consumer decide. If this amounts to a better environment for our children to grow up in, it will first need education of the consumer, and democratical pressure on the law-making process. For instance: hold and then send petitions to car producers, asking them for clean energy, and within our lifetimes we might reminisce of those oil-dependent cars as we do now of steam locomotives.

The problem is -- as others have pointed out -- that the laws of the free market, going back to English thinkers as John Locke, are presently being disrespected, bent and shaped by politicians. So-called politicians, because they are really business execs machiavellically prostituting political ethics, taking advantage of patriottic convictions solely for the conservation of the industries that made them rich. Who are they? An explosive osmosis of oil, gas and weapon corporations, threatened by the pacifying and ecologically awakening tendencies of the late 1990's. The Bushes and Cheneys broke the laws of democracy, took power over the executive order, in order to break the laws of the free market and ultimately control the large currents of the neo-industrial system. They needed two things: more wars, and more oil&gas. This, ideologically, is contrary to the very essence of free-market capitalism.

What the world needs is a United States as the leading ethical, economical and environmental representatives of the Western world. Not this cabal of survivalists who would even sell their mothers if that assured the growth of their trade. The grandeur of the U.S. is withering due to them.

Yet another problem identified on the battle to win the cleaner environment brokers. c.i.

It's the same problem as the one you mentioned recently, cicerone. I just felt like rephrasing it.

Wolf,

Do you really believe that a completely unfettered free market would reduce the use of coal for the production of electrical power? As a matter of fact coal generation is a good deal cheaper than gas and cheaper by a factor of more than two than wind or solar power. Similarly the use of gasoline in internal combustion engines to power personal vehicles is much cheaper than any available alternative. Hybrid engines will likely get a small market niche in the coming years, but they are hardly likely to dominate, given the driving public's well known preference for high torque/high acceleration vehicles.

Are you suggesting there is a hidden conspiracy to keep economical and cleaner sources off the market? If so what is your evidence for this rather remarkable assertion? Business is intensely competitive and if there was a better way it is very likely that someone would put it on the market and profit as a result.

Ultimately most 'environmentalists' want government-directed coercive programs with which to achieve their goals. This is the sort of thing that stifles innovation and threatens the very technological progress that offers the best hope for cleaner sources of energy.

I repeat: what do you propose, george?

http://www.aspentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030623/NEWS/306220015

I propose that we ignore environmental zealots and their proposals for coercive "remedies" for the problems they imagine will go unsolved without their benevolent intrusion,

I also propose that you answer my questions.

Those you choose to call alarmist zealots happen to represent the majority of the planet's scientific and political community. I linked to their authoritive findings some posts ago.

As for the solutions, they have been addressed as well. Convert oil dependent cars into hybrid and zero emission vehicles and global warming reduces with 40% and becomes less of a problem.

The warming of our houses -- the issues of electricity generation -- can be addressed from thereon.

I agree with you that everything can't be overthrown at the same time, by some kind of environmental coup. That's not what anyone wants. But we MUST resolve important parts of the greenhouse gas issue if we want to avoid a planetary climatological runaway process.

A rather odd set of priorities. Exactly how would you "Convert oil dependent cars into hybrid and zero emission vehicles..." ? Hybrid, or compound engine vehicles are also oil dependent, and the required storage battery technology itself presents some environmental and safety problems.

Should the Federal government make it a crime for people to operate conventional internal combustion engined vehicles? What if other countries, such as China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, and Russia won't go along? Such a transformation would bring about wrenching economic and life style changes. There seems little prospect that the American public could ever be persuaded to accept such restrictions on their personal freedom. How do you plan to do it?

Zero emission vehicles is a euphemism generally applied to electrical or fuel cell powered vehicles. Fuel cells operating on hydrogen operate at extremely high temperatures which present serious safety problems. They also require large quantities of platinum as a catalyst - a limitation that could restrict availability and raise costs dramatically. Finally they leave open the question of where we would get the hydrogen. Presumably we would burn more coal to produce the added electrical power needed to extract the hydrogen from water. The very large energy losses involved in the several conversion processes required would seriously dilute any emission gains that would result. Other fuel cell processes involving petroleum and methane have been designed, however they are at an earlier stage of development, require the same use of platinum as a catalyst, and involve the leakage associated with the ubiquitous distribution and storage of methane gas, which of course is a greenhouse gas about 25 times as effective as CO2 per unit of mass.

From an engineering perspective, you would have been much better off targeting first the large plants through which we produce our electrical power. The payoff for control measures on large point sources is much greater than what would result from an attempt to control the much greater number of vehicles moving about everywhere. If, for example, the United States were to raise its use of zero emission nuclear power plants to the level of (say) France, we could in that step alone meet our Kyoto goals. Would you be in favor of that?

george wrote some smart and educated and cogent arguments above and then he went and wrote...
Of all the hare-brained ideas that business folks get in their noggins, this is maybe the dumbest - other than boob jobs for the little lady or supporting strip mall architectural styles.

Government (who, it is good to remember, ought to represent the entire community) commonly constrains and re-directs the activities of the elements in its citizenry where mere self-interest is either destructive or unhelpful. Let's all say it together now.... "LOVE CANAL! BLENDED TOBACCOS! INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN PLUTONIUM!"

This just in:


I particularly liked this comment just prior to the last sentence:

But was taken aback by the bias inherent in that final sentence:

Given this indication of the author's stance, it's no wonder that so much of the article is devoted not to the conclusions of this new study but to its detractors.

NOTE: I am not assuming that this study is correct; I simply offer it as something new to add to the debate. (Unlike the article's author, however, I am not assuming it is wrong, either.)