View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Let’s hear it for government climate intervention

Posted: June 10, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: June 10, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

It was just so exciting to read how the White House and EPA will save the planet despite those nasty and ridiculous global warming and climate change deniers.

What wasn’t mentioned was our profound indebtedness to Al Gore for discovering global warming after he “invented” the Internet.

And, of course, “global warming” became “climate change” after the planet started to cool again. And we owe so much to those climate change monitors checking out the “ice melt” down near the South Pole.

Unfortunately, their ship got stuck in the ice, for some strange unexplainable reason, and had to be towed out.

And as we face this brand new climate change issue we’re still waiting for an answer as to why there could ever be a country named Greenland right next to Iceland in the Arctic area.

Perhaps the climate has actually warmed and cooled in the past millennia ... even before Al Gore?

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:07 a.m.

Another visit from the peanut gallery.

The research vessel and a couple others were trapped in floating pack ice, being packed together by wind, waves. When the wind changed direction they were free. It has more to do with changing weather than cold temperatures.

Regarding Greenland:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/11/30/icy-greenland-melting-at-accelerating-rate-study-finds/


Lotus8: Posted: June 10, 2014 10:53 a.m.

To deny that the planet is currently warming is probably foolish, given the data that are coming in. However, the cause of the warming is really the point of debate. The earth has obviously warmed and cooled tremendously throughout its history without any assistance from man. I am a supporter of further research on this topic, as we do have a scientific duty to prevent the earth from turning into Venus. However, to place a very stiff tax on carbon in the economy at this point will simply push industry overseas to countries who don't levy these taxes. At that point, we will have weakened our domestic economy and the same pollution will still be taking place (if we can truly call carbon emission pollution).


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 10, 2014 4:43 p.m.

Lotus- you are spot on. But, the anthropogenic climate change nazis won't listen to reason. Cue stevehw....


tech: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:59 p.m.

“The school she was going to – that touted itself as an environmental school – was teaching my child to count with M&M’s,” Amis-Cameron tells NPR. “And everything in my life came to a screeching halt.”

Suzy and James — environmentalist vegans themselves (though James didn’t make that decision until after Avatar) — see plant-based diets as the biggest thing someone can do to reduce his or her footprint. “You can’t really call yourself an environmentalist if you’re still consuming animals,” Amis-Cameron says. “You just can’t.”

- Suzy Amis-Cameron

http://grist.org/list/move-over-avatar-suzy-amis-cameron-james-wife-fights-environmental-disaster-with-vegan-school-lunches/


ricketzz: Posted: June 11, 2014 7:33 a.m.

There are visual aids galore that easily disprove a lot of nonsense above. The trapped atmosphere in ice goes back 800,000 years. We have not had this much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in that entire time period, including many glacial, interglacial cycles. Burning coal to power industry began human undoing of a self-regulating ecosystem, when James Watt made the first practical steam engine (really a coal engine) in the early 19th century.

Going meatless several days a week will make a contribution. It will be easy soon, as you won't be able to outbid the Japanese, Chinese for the depleting resource.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php


tech: Posted: June 11, 2014 7:59 a.m.

Fortunately, we have the Camerons providing climate leadership by example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKZ4RolQxec


Lotus8: Posted: June 11, 2014 11:09 a.m.

To take my statement one step further, the more manufacturing and industry we chase off shore, the less impact future climate change laws will have on this issue globally. At that point, even if solid scientific evidence points us towards drastically reducing carbon emissions, we may be reliant on foreign governments to act responsibly on this issue. I wonder how many domestic environmental activists take this kind of longer term view into consideration?


Indy: Posted: June 13, 2014 6:40 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: To deny that the planet is currently warming is probably foolish, given the data that are coming in. However, the cause of the warming is really the point of debate. The earth has obviously warmed and cooled tremendously throughout its history without any assistance from man. I am a supporter of further research on this topic, as we do have a scientific duty to prevent the earth from turning into Venus. However, to place a very stiff tax on carbon in the economy at this point will simply push industry overseas to countries who don't levy these taxes. At that point, we will have weakened our domestic economy and the same pollution will still be taking place (if we can truly call carbon emission pollution).

Indy: Do you understand that the carbon trading tax allows for the most expensive carbon to be reduced first?

And there is no question that reducing fossil fuels in the ‘energy mix’ will create some economic downturn . . .

If you really want a good look at the energy situation . . . not to mention other resource issues, try: The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment by Chris Martenson.

He addresses your concerns about energy and seeing the ‘numbers’ if you will does indeed paint a difficult picture to fully transfer to nonrenewable sources.

In any event, since the US uses about 20% of all energy with just 5% or so of the world population, it would behoove us to set the pace if you will . . .

But today, the two main factors that is causing the ‘per capital energy’ globally to stagnate or fall, are unknown to most Americans.

I personally don’t know if Americans can come to grips with the consequences of burning fossil fuels and it’s a shame the issue wasn’t addressed decades ago.

In any event, check out this site: http://8020vision.com/2011/10/17/energy-return-on-investment-eroi-for-u-s-oil-and-gas-discovery-and-production/ for a comparison of the relative energy outputs for various types of energy today using a term all Americans need to know: EROEI (Energy returned over energy invested).

Here’s a good site to see the per capital energy: http://ecobrooklyn.com/world-energy-consumption-capita/

Finally, check out: http://www.planetforlife.com/oilcrisis/oilsituation.html for a graphical review that notes that global energy ‘discovery’ peaked in the mid-sixties. . . and that for each barrel or so consumed ‘today’, one 1 barrel is being discovered . . .


Indy: Posted: June 13, 2014 6:45 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: To take my statement one step further, the more manufacturing and industry we chase off shore, the less impact future climate change laws will have on this issue globally.

Indy: The main driver for moving jobs off shore is the ‘wage differential’ from the global oversupply of labor. Multinationals can profit from moving manufacturing to nations that pay perhaps 10% or less of the wages here.

But indeed if the other nations don’t address fossil fuel issue either in the short run, then indeed this too will drive more jobs off shore as energy cost for those developing nations will be less in the ‘short run’.

We might and I will look into why nations like Germany are doing well with increasing their renewables while still maintaining their ability to trade profitability.

Lotus8 wrote: At that point, even if solid scientific evidence points us towards drastically reducing carbon emissions, we may be reliant on foreign governments to act responsibly on this issue. I wonder how many domestic environmental activists take this kind of longer term view into consideration?

Indy: This issue is absolutely going to make or break the climate change issue.


tech: Posted: June 15, 2014 9:24 p.m.

"We might and I will look into why nations like Germany are doing well with increasing their renewables while still maintaining their ability to trade profitability." - Indy

Goodnight Sunshine

Germany is cutting solar-power subsidies because they are expensive and inefficient.

Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?

Subsidizing green technology is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.

According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s minister of economics and technology, has called the spiraling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html


tech: Posted: June 15, 2014 9:34 p.m.

"In any event, since the US uses about 20% of all energy with just 5% or so of the world population, it would behoove us to set the pace if you will . . . " - Indy

You repeatedly post this factoid without context, i.e. the USA produces ~25% of global GDP. That requires energy.

What you and your fellow travelers are advocating is a reduction in the standard of living that expensive energy would entail. Why not be honest about it?


Indy: Posted: June 15, 2014 6:24 p.m.

Tech wrote: "We might and I will look into why nations like Germany are doing well with increasing their renewables while still maintaining their ability to trade profitability." - Indy

Goodnight Sunshine Germany is cutting solar-power subsidies because they are expensive and inefficient.

Indy: Understandably, subsidizing solar energy is looked down upon by many including this poster while the fossil fuel industry in the US gets ‘billions’.

Further, Germany places itself outside the ‘reach’ of Russia’s Putin who threatens shutting off natural gas supplied to Europe.

We also know that world oil discovery ‘peaked’ in the mid 1960s . . . and world oil is now peaking in production: http://www.planetforlife.com/oilcrisis/oilsituation.html

And it’s great to know that one of the more established industrial nations is actually addressing the climate change issue by significantly reducing its CO2 releases while still helping it’s economy!

In any event, for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

I think you’ll see a nation where they are actually dealing with the energy reality before us . . . versus listening to the spokespeople from the fossil fuel industry more interested in protecting ‘current market share and stranded assets’ in the ‘short run’ while ignoring the ‘long run’ our descendants will ‘live in’.

So the poster asserts that ‘solar-power subsidies because they are expensive and inefficient’ but this in only in ‘today’s’ pricing . . . let’s see how it’s working in 10 years . . .

Perhaps the poster can explain to us why we’re still importing about 50% of our nation’s oil . . .


Indy: Posted: June 15, 2014 6:34 p.m.

Tech wrote: "In any event, since the US uses about 20% of all energy with just 5% or so of the world population, it would behoove us to set the pace if you will . . . " - Indy

You repeatedly post this factoid without context, i.e. the USA produces ~25% of global GDP. That requires energy.

Indy: Yes, the poster advocates ‘unsustainable growth’ that is being built upon energy sources that are nonrenewable (coal, natural gas, and oil) that also is endangering our future due to the consequences of releasing the carbon dioxide (CO2) that is a byproduct of combustion.

For a good discussion on all of this try: The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment Chris Martenson

Tech wrote: What you and your fellow travelers are advocating is a reduction in the standard of living that expensive energy would entail. Why not be honest about it?

Indy: I’m not surprised that the poster mischaracterizes the energy issues facing us since he ‘assumes’ ‘unlimited energy’ on this fixed rock in space.

Again, even the US only has about 3% of the world’s proven oil reserves: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/

Notice that the total US proven oil reserves is 33.4 billion barrels but the US uses about 7 billion per year. What’s 7 into 33?

We need to start moving dramatically faster to renewables sources of energy if the US has any chance at all of keeping its economy going . . . long term.

Finally, the other issue facing us is based on just standard economics, in fact the basis of economics – scarcity – that notes we have to ‘trade off’ our choices. Do we want more quantity and less quality of life?

These decisions will be made apart from this poster as we’ll see shortly.


ricketzz: Posted: June 16, 2014 7:43 a.m.

As we use less energy to accomplish more our quality of life improves. Nobody wants to be a pig.


ricketzz: Posted: June 17, 2014 6:56 a.m.

We import and export oil at the same time because someone gets a fee going each way. Big Oil is like kerosene lighting. Barely worth the trouble.


tech: Posted: June 17, 2014 7:13 p.m.

"And it’s great to know that one of the more established industrial nations is actually addressing the climate change issue by significantly reducing its CO2 releases while still helping it’s economy! " - Indy

Source? Germany is shutting down nuclear and burning more coal.

"The plan was called energiewende, which can be translated as energy transition or even revolution. But despite Germany’s shift to renewable solar and wind energies, and amid a recession, its carbon emissions rose by 1.8pc last year."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10577513/Germany-is-a-cautionary-tale-of-how-energy-polices-can-harm-the-economy.html



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...