Here we go again. So you reckon that a guy like James Hansen - a NASA climatologist, who feels so strongly about what his research has been telling him for decades that he is prepared to forego holidays and get locked up in order to sound alarm bells - is either incompetent, or just plain wrong? He is telling you it IS the cause. There may be people telling you the opposite, but rest assured, it is not a case, as Figaro has stated, that for everyone saying A, another guy says B. The reality is that about 10 or more guys are saying A for everyone saying B. It's not just a matter of opinion, it's about a weight of scientific evidence and observation.
I'm increasingly inclined to give in here. I have thrown a pebble into a pond. It has made a small ripple. I can't do more - and I doubt that all the reasoned debate I could muster ever would.
I don't think we can maintain our current standard of living, for a number of reasons mainly to do with resource depletion, financial instability and population growth. Neither do I think it is always cheaper to plan to avoid the disaster than it is to deal with the disaster, sometimes you just have to roll with it. I like Pete's last post, particularly the last sentence. I just do not believe it is as clear cut as the warmists like to make out and I absolutely believe that the whole thing has been hijacked for political and personal gain by a number of the proponents, which is a separate issue to whether it is real or not. To misquote Jim Lovell 'global warming is problem number 967 we are currently on problem number 15', OK maybe I exagerate, but not by much. Probably more than 99.9% of the global population have much more pressing problems to deal with. Fix the things that are real and immediate. If you can't decide whether we will 'underwater or in a desert' where would you start ?
I meant, depending on where you are living. Coasts will be underwater, other areas (like the central plains of the US, apparently) will be dust bowls. "Neither do I think it is always cheaper to plan to avoid the disaster than it is to deal with the disaster, sometimes you just have to roll with it." Try telling that to the inhabitants of New Orleans. Once there have been a dozen different scenarios like New Orleans, people will eventually decide that preventing the flooding is cheaper than the post flood chaos. It's easy to say "roll with it" in a dismissive couple of key strokes. What if it's your house under water? I'm not bothered personally. I live at the top of a hill. But I don't subscribe to an "I'm alright Jack" attitude.
Neither do I, I take what I consider to be a pragmatic view. As a species we have always had to adapt to changing climatic conditions and we allways will. Writing off investments like abandoning New Orleans might be a price we have to pay because there is no realistic alternative but it will have an economic impact and will be just one of the posssible secenarios that conspire to limit growth in the future and reduce our standard of living. I used to think that the problems we faced were all solvable by technological fixes, but now I realise that politics is the key.
Do what, exactly? If driving cars and motorbikes is the problem, let's all stop doing that. Yay! the earth is saved! Or how about we stop putting aeroplanes in the air? Yay! Problem solved! Or how about we stop burning coal, or gas, or wood, or whatever the hell else we can find to burn. Yay! Problem solved! Or perhaps if we all turn off the lights...
I still think they are pretty much all solvable by technological fixes (because the human race is pretty bloody clever) but politics, you're right, will decide if we decide to solve them or not. And as er.. in Britain it's a democracy, sort of, then the electorate will decide if it wants to try and solve the problem or not. Right now, it doesn't much want to. Ditto most other countries.
I got it about 140 posts ago Pete. I'm just trying to change your minds. With zero success by the looks of things. But what are forums without discussion?
I can't get your links to TED.com to work, probably due to bandwidth and / or software at my end, but yes Thorium is the one technology on the horizon with realistic prospects of meeting some of our energy needs. We are being distracted by all of this renewable bollox that will never meet todays energy needs but provides valuable subsidies to a few already wealthy people and fits the current (flawed) paradigm. The main advantage from an engineering perspect is that the reaction is not a chain reaction, doesn't need to be moderated and can easily be designed to fail safe. I believe it is also an abundant element in the earth's crust. The main reason why Uranium was chosen over Thorium to fuel our existing reactors was that Plutonium was being created, which doesn't occur naturally, and is used in atomic bombs.
John, you have to get TED sorted out as it is an absolutely invaluable resource for new ideas of every stripe in all domains. It is fascinating and important. Try different browsers or view from a different location if you have puny bandwidth. When you have you must also look at this: Amory Lovins on winning the oil endgame | Video on TED.com You will then quite likely want to read his free book which is available here: www.oilendgame.com Not a green bloke as such and the book was collaborated on by the Pentagon - so no tree-huggery here. But really interesting ideas from what looks like a heavyweight global energy expert: Winning the Oil Endgame-The Authors
I have just skimmed Winning the Oil Endgame and it contains some interesting stuff, it is also way optimistic in its claims, for the author the glass is most definitely half full. It is good in that it focuses on improving energy efficiency and proposes a number of technological solutions to that effect, all of which have merit. What it lacks is an explanation of what the primary energy sources will be beyond at bit of bio fuel and a few windmills. It fails to address the law of diminishing returns when it comes to efficiency improvements, it takes more and more investment to get smaller and smaller gains; for example in ‘cash for clunkers’, those who can afford it can scrap their gas guzzlers and gain a subsidy to buy a new super efficient vehicle to save on fuel, but even the author recognise that this might adversely affect ‘minorities and the poor’ who ‘need low cost transport’. This is using taxpayer’s money to subsidise the well off at the expense of the poor. The suggestion is that on the one hand a new generation of fuel efficient planes can still fly people around the globe and on the other hand people will use less fuel because technological change will mean they can stay within their own communities; which is it going to be? Then there is hydrogen. A great carrier of energy, with good efficiency in fuel cell applications but it all has to be made, which takes energy. The basic problem remains, where does the energy come from? I just do not see that, even with efficiency improvements, we can continue to maintain our current lifestyle without oil or nuclear; that which is unsustainable will come to an end. What this person is doing is selling a dream to people desperate to believe. I have no doubt he is very smart and sincere but if he is viewing the world from a zero energy home built up in the Rockies and jetting around planet to address various conferences I can see why he might have a rosy outlook. Who is funding RMI and what is their agenda. I also think describing him as a 'heavyweight global energy expert' is over egging the custard.
If you wear sandals too, you must be a vegetarian tree-hugger. Or perhaps just outrageously francophile.
I saw this a good while ago, but have heard nothing more since. If there's any truth to it's use it can only be a good thing. Of course if you can make it sound dangerous, you can tax it...perhaps that's the reason for the long gestation period.
There's a load of good ideas about which we hear nothing more. Probably because the people like Areva have a vested interest in current technology and there is a private enterprise mantra which says that governments should not get involved in private business. Plus as 75% of people, judging from this forum at any rate, don't think there is a problem - why bother looking for alternative solutions?
Winning the Oil Endgame mentions that giants like Shell and BP are investing in new technologies, they are repositioning themselves away from being oil companies (dirty and horrible), to energy companies (bright and cheerful), hence the BP sunflower / helios logo. Largely this is just an image thing as alternatives are a very, very small percentage of their business; but they can't afford to be out of that sector. I genuinely believe that good ideas will be developed however, but only if they really are good ideas. Just because 75% of people don't think AGW is real and/or a problem doesn't mean they don't think other problems exist which do require solutions. In my younger days I looked closely at 'alternative' lifestyles and concluded, like many other people, that you could live a very comfortable 'alternative lifestyle' if you had a well paid job to support it. I would love to live in an eco friendly zero energy house up in the Rockies (or Switzerland :wink but unfortunately I can't afford to. The other thing that Winning the Oil Endgame completely failed to address was who was going to own these new technologies, how, given that much of the proposed gain was going to come from efficiency improvements, were those people who were left behind going to live. I have been a lifelong supporter of the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales and they have evolved from sandal wearing hippies into eco realists who are developing genuinely interesting stuff (they still wear sandals though). However having that technology work on a recliamed industrial site in west Wales is one thing but adapting it to meet the needs of 62 million Brits, including the 30 million people who currently live in the cities of the UK, is another. Which brings us back to politics and economics.
