Or you might spend the time productively discussing the details supporting the supposed risk and what could be done to lessen the harms in question vs. veering off into dissusions of various pieces of fiction
Comment on (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists by Rob Starkey
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by curious
It’s not just the “world’s poor” in need of cheap energy supplies. Youth unemployment in Europe is at crisis level in some countries.
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Pooh, Dixie
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. – Genesis 1:3, NIV
Not bad for something written in 1450-1410 B.C.
↧
Comment on (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists by willard (@nevaudit)
What you say of my brain may not apply to all the brains that were, are, and will, Doc. A logical proof could go as far as to prove things that applies in all possible worlds.
You’re not the first white shirt I’ve seen trying to play tough, you know. The concept of “proof” has been borrowed by experimentalists mainly to intimidate researchers from other fields or research programs.
I like it when people tell I do sophistry, word play, and mumbo crap when I make a logical point.
Please continue.
Search for “justified true belief” if you’re really interested to know more about what you’re saying. Try to stand in front of a philosophical crowd. You should see quite fast how tough you really are.
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by kim
It’s really pretty easy. With the minimal warming effect and larger greening effect found with AnthroCO2, fossil fuels will remain the tool of choice for human progress out of poverty, to infinity and beyond, until those hydrocarbon bonds are worth more for structure than merely for the energy within them. That will happen sooner with energy and/or storage breakthroughs, or the easing of anxiety over nuclear energy.
===========
↧
↧
Comment on (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists by willard (@nevaudit)
Andrew Adams,
You see how it works?
I will never advise you to simply say “Gleick’s actions were suboptimal” and wash your hands of this appearance of conversation.
I will not tell you what I would do either.
I’m just telling you what I did and that it worked.
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by David Appell
Of course, the poor need more energy. That hardly means the rich and affluent can’t afford to pay for its pollution, carbon and otherwise, and for renewable energy that does not alter the climate for millennia. We can, and we should.
Indeed, we ought to be developing the cleaner energy sources the poor can eventually adopt, via massive R&D, preferably funded by a tax on carbon pollution. Or subsidize them directly.
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Harold
“For the sake of argument, lets assume that the IPCC consensus is roughly correct regarding dangerous anthropogenic climate change, with the dangers becoming apparent in the latter half of the 21st century, and mitigation of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is necessary, urgent, imperative (or whatever the latest word being used in professional society advocacy statements).
How do you square this climate policy ‘imperative’ with the real need right now of the majority of the people on the planet for greater access to energy? ”
Nuclear.
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by AK
Well, a full explanation of my opinion (and suggestions) would take at least a long post, more likely a book. But briefly, a simplistic summary of my current answer centers around methane.
We need a near-term focus on increasing methane production from existing and near-term sources: existing, fracking, and sea-floor methane. This feeds the switchover of fixed energy plants from coal and oil, and as many as feasible of transport technology as well. (e.g. trains, big trucks, shipping, and perhaps aircraft.) Fixed power production should also switch from very large fixed plants to small installations capable of being transported by helicopter and/or truck, feeding an electrical grid much more concentrated on local generation. Short term changes to local demand can thus be met much more quickly, without the construction and right-of-way issues involved in large-scale transport. Power production capacity can also be reused when local demand drops, simply by shipping the power plants to new locations.
Medium-term should see a focus on nuclear, especially including solar, power. Rather than feeding the grid directly, electrolysis to hydrogen followed by bio-conversion to methane will allow leveraging long-term investments in methane-fired technology. Once the generation, storage, and transport safety issues are worked out with mature technology, hydrogen can replace methane for new construction. Other possibilities include electrolytic creation of metallic sodium, which would certainly be effective in fixed fuel-cell installations, although I’m not certain about vehicles.
Long-term, of course, is Space Solar Power.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Pooh, Dixie
Kent re Ploesti. We also took care to try to sink every oil tanker bound for Japan.
As a result, neither Germany nor Japan had sufficient mobile fuel supplies.
Denial of fuel is a very effective war strategy.
Seems familiar in current events.
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by willard (@nevaudit)
> To those scientists that are advocating for a global emissions reduction policy, have you thought this one through?
Is this a rhetorical question?
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by willard (@nevaudit)
Yes, but have you really thought this through, David Appell?
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Arcs_n_Sparks
Time to be serious and aggressive with small modular reactor development and deployment. For those worried about proliferation, a ten year sealed reactor core could be “returned to sender” from countries of concern (the Boeing model; no need for them to develop a nuclear infrastructure to enjoy the benefit). Next, use nuclear power to make transportation fuels like dimethyl ether.
↧
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Luis Gutierrez
The problem is even more wicked. Given the current order of things in the financial world, most of the additional energy consumption that is needed for the 75% will never get to them; most of the additional production will be consumed by the 10%. There is no such thing as “cheap” energy supplies in an overpopulated and violent world where “big fish eats little fish.”
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by Hockey Schtick
New paper finds CO2 emissions self-regulate as economic prosperity increases, without carbon taxes
A paper published today in Global Environmental Change finds that CO2 emissions are essentially self-regulating, that after countries reach a higher GDP level, CO2 emissions stabilize or even decrease, without the imposition of carbon taxes. According to the authors, “Evidence from recent four decades indicates that per capita carbon dioxide emission first significantly and monotonously increase at low income level and flattens after per capita income reaches at about 22,000 $ (2005 constant price).” “A ‘first-rise-then-flat’ relationship of carbon dioxide per capita and GDP per capita was found”, which suggests carbon taxes are unnecessary to stabilize emissions in higher GDP countries.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-co2-emissions-self.html
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/3/13 by Pooh, Dixie
You write, “What part of the US constitution’s bill of rights applies to individuals, not organized religious entities do you not understand?”
Amendments I, IX, and X.
Amendment I in particular, re: government establishment of religion prohibited, free exercise of it guaranteed, as well as the right to peaceably assemble.
Read the fine manual.
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by David Appell
Come on. The “self-regulation” in the US is hardly enough, from a per capita peak of about 22 t CO2/yr to (now) 17 t CO2/yr. That’s hardly anything like what is needed, and even if all coal-generated power were replaced by natural gas, the savings aren’t nearly enough — it only gets you down to about 15 t CO2/yr:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-if-natural-gas-produced-all-our.html
↧
↧
Comment on Himalayan melt impacts by John
From memory, I would have to dig for the source, Himalayan glaciers provide about 4% of annual runoff in the region’s rivers. The monsoons do the rest.
↧
Comment on Conflicts between climate and energy priorities by timg56
Max,
You are correct. I read the comment through a couple of times and saw the distinction between the two different points.
↧
Comment on Himalayan melt impacts by Rob Starkey
How has that region done in building infrastructure to protect people from damage from those annual floods and to retain water to be used when it isn’t raining? LOL–yea, the problem is CO2….
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
