PDA

View Full Version : Fixing climate change



Chloe
12-04-2012, 07:40 PM
What do you think are the best and most realistic ways of reducing our impact with regards to climate change? There's no real quick or immediate fix of course but obviously few major ways would be to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and move to more clean and sustainable energy sources, reduce the amount of harmful gasses and toxins we put into the atmosphere overall, and to change our habits as much as we can to lesson our own personal impact, but what else?

patrickt
12-04-2012, 07:46 PM
I like the way true believers combine climate change with AGW. When I was in junior high we discussed the fact that thousands of years ago most of North America was covered with incredible glaciers and now just a few were left. We discussed a warming climate and how the climate changes. I don't know anyone who questions climate change but I'm still waiting for someone to explain how we, humans, caused the glaciers to disappear thousands of years ago. I'm sure we did. The climate on Mars is changing, too, and I'm sure that's my fault. I can't figure out but as soon as the liberals find a way to raise taxes on it a way will be found.

Climate change exists and while I recognize that each and every liberal is the center of the universe we aren't causing it and we can't stop it. People should get out of their climate controlled environments and experience nature just a little bit.

Chloe
12-04-2012, 07:48 PM
I like the way true believers combine climate change with AGW. When I was in junior high we discussed the fact that thousands of years ago most of North America was covered with incredible glaciers and now just a few were left. We discussed a warming climate and how the climate changes. I don't know anyone who questions climate change but I'm still waiting for someone to explain how we, humans, caused the glaciers to disappear thousands of years ago. I'm sure we did. The climate on Mars is changing, too, and I'm sure that's my fault. I can't figure out but as soon as the liberals find a way to raise taxes on it a way will be found.

Climate change exists and while I recognize that each and every liberal is the center of the universe we aren't causing it and we can't stop it. People should get out of their climate controlled environments and experience nature just a little bit.

Well I agree that climate change happens and has happened before but since the industrial revolution human pollution has been affecting the atmosphere. If you combine natural climate change with our own impact it's logical to think that we are adding to it and making it possibly worse.

Chris
12-04-2012, 07:53 PM
The question is how much are we affecting it negatively? If we skip the climate alarmists and deniers, and stick to science, there's no clear answer. First there was gloabal warming, then cooling, then warming, and now, for over 15 years virtually flat temps.

Then there's the economic question of what can we afford to do? As we head over a fiscal cliff and possibly worse, probably not much.

Finally, how much can we affect climate positively?

exotix
12-04-2012, 07:58 PM
The only known proof of Man-Made Climate Change comes from the Acid Rain Complex ... the Great Lakes area, long an ecological stunted and dead area from emissions and pollution by industry, life began to flourish again when toxicants were completely eliminated ...

So the first thing to do is to get conservatives to co-operate (with Kyoto Protocols) instead of claiming Gods Will on everybody and anything at every natural-catastrophe.

Chloe
12-04-2012, 07:58 PM
The question is how much are we affecting it negatively? If we skip the climate alarmists and deniers, and stick to science, there's no clear answer. First there was gloabal warming, then cooling, then warming, and now, for over 15 years virtually flat temps.

Then there's the economic question of what can we afford to do? As we head over a fiscal cliff and possibly worse, probably not much.

Finally, how much can we affect climate positively?

Your last question is tough. It is possible that we would make all sorts of changes and the climate still goes up or down. If that happens then at the very least we are polluting less and acting in a more responsible and sustainable way.

Chris
12-04-2012, 08:02 PM
Your last question is tough. It is possible that we would make all sorts of changes and the climate still goes up or down. If that happens then at the very least we are polluting less and acting in a more responsible and sustainable way.

But is it sustainable? Can we afford it? Point #2 above.

Years back there was an economist out of Scandinavia iirc, who gave a talk and asked alright then, we've got climate warning, pollution, poverty, hunger, disease, war, and dozens of other major problems man faces. We can't solve all of them.

IMO, we can't solve any of them.



Found him: Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change (http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html).

Chloe
12-04-2012, 08:04 PM
But is it sustainable? Can we afford it? Point #2 above.

Years back there was an economist out of Scandinavia iirc, who gave a talk and asked alright then, we've got climate warning, pollution, poverty, hunger, disease, war, and dozens of other major problems man faces. We can't solve all of them.

IMO, we can't solve any of them.

True but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try

Mainecoons
12-04-2012, 08:08 PM
A lot more people die from being too cold than too warm.

The $64 question: What is the point of the U.S. crippling its economy further when China, worlds #1 polluter, and India aren't participating? The U.S. is already one of the most energy efficient, low polluting countries on the planet when it comes to manufacturing. If we didn't have so damn many cars, it would be a low emission country.

Do you want your country to impoverish its economy meeting standards that its competitors ignore? Because that is what is really being advocated here.

Chris
12-04-2012, 08:08 PM
True but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try

How? It would take tons of money we just do not have.

There's a whole big free market out there available to invent the kinds of things man might need to adjust to climate change--since we're uncertain it won't change no matter what we do.

Peter1469
12-04-2012, 08:13 PM
Dr. Zubrin has a plan: http://energyvictory.net/

Captain Obvious
12-04-2012, 09:16 PM
There will never be global consensus on effectively dealing with climate change, only issue dodging and finger pointing (and stalling).

The bigger question is - how are we going to deal with an uncontrolled changing climate?

Polar ice caps are melting, temps are rising and trapped methane is being released furthering the climate issue. None of this can be practically controlled at this point, it's time to focus on damage control.

Or just bury our heads in the sand which seems to be the popular choice.

Peter1469
12-04-2012, 09:20 PM
Or we may be on the verge of the next ice age.

Captain Obvious
12-04-2012, 09:23 PM
Or we may be on the verge of the next ice age.

Whatever the natural cycle of climate change is just that - natural. Man-made impact on what is otherwise a natural cycle is just that, unnatural and unbalancing.

Peter1469
12-04-2012, 09:27 PM
Maybe we would benefit from man slowing down the next ice age.

KC
12-04-2012, 09:39 PM
It's a complex issue, but any single solution would likely fall short and the human costs would be staggering.

Individuals who care deeply about the future our life on earth are creating innovations to deal with some of the worst effects of warming. Some of them seem a little odd, but thinking outside the box is what geoengineering is all about.

-Painting A Mountain To Save The Planet (http://chimalaya.org/2011/11/22/painting-a-mountain-to-save-the-planet/)

-Ten Solutions For Climate Change (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=10-solutions-for-climate-change)

KC
12-04-2012, 09:50 PM
Methane to energy? (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/if-life-gives-you-methane-make-methane-energy#.UL61q4YSNMI)

Captain Obvious
12-04-2012, 09:51 PM
Methane to energy? (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/if-life-gives-you-methane-make-methane-energy#.UL61q4YSNMI)

Access and infrastructure = problem.

KC
12-04-2012, 09:55 PM
Access and infrastructure = problem.

Then BMW and the other companies that have expressed interest won't invest. That's the beauty of it.

Captain Obvious
12-04-2012, 09:57 PM
There was a radio segment on NPR about scientists monitoring frozen methane leaks in Antarctica (I believe), they were igniting the released methane and tracking it by air. I couldn't find the clip but the suggestion is that methane which has a greater impact on warming than Co2 is now being released by shrinking ice caps.

I'll dig around a little and post it if I can find it.

KC
12-04-2012, 09:58 PM
Some ideas are just crappy.

Cow manure to energy. (http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/renewable_energy_from_cows.htm)

Captain Obvious
12-04-2012, 09:58 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/27/doha-climate-conference-un-methane

KC
12-04-2012, 09:59 PM
There was a radio segment on NPR about scientists monitoring frozen methane leaks in Antarctica (I believe), they were igniting the released methane and tracking it by air. I couldn't find the clip but the suggestion is that methane which has a greater impact on warming than Co2 is now being released by shrinking ice caps.

I'll dig around a little and post it if I can find it.

Methane leaves the atmosphere much quicker than Co2, however.

Chris
12-04-2012, 09:59 PM
It's a complex issue, but any single solution would likely fall short and the human costs would be staggering.

Individuals who care deeply about the future our life on earth are creating innovations to deal with some of the worst effects of warming. Some of them seem a little odd, but thinking outside the box is what geoengineering is all about.

-Painting A Mountain To Save The Planet (http://chimalaya.org/2011/11/22/painting-a-mountain-to-save-the-planet/)

-Ten Solutions For Climate Change (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=10-solutions-for-climate-change)

I think this is on the right track. The basic idea is to adapt through innovation.

As long as it's driven by the free market, because then the innovations will be diverse, what works will be adopted.

If we let government drive the effort we will have bureaucratic elites with no qualifications making choices like Solyndra

KC
12-04-2012, 10:09 PM
Methane, Renewable Energy, Anaerobic Digestion (http://www.learningjoyresources.com/AD.html)

Captain Obvious
12-04-2012, 10:09 PM
Methane leaves the atmosphere much quicker than Co2, however.

That segment I heard states that but also states that methane has a greater impact on climate change that isn't figured into most accepted predictions of global warming impact.

The other part was that frozen methane is something (if I remember correctly) 160 times the volume of gas methane.

KC
12-04-2012, 10:12 PM
That segment I heard states that but also states that methane has a greater impact on climate change that isn't figured into most accepted predictions of global warming impact.

The other part was that frozen methane is something (if I remember correctly) 160 times the volume of gas methane.

Wow. That part about the frozen methane I didn't know. There are some pretty simple ways for ordinary people to reduce the impact of methane gas entering the atmosphere, but I'm bot aware of any solutions for frozen methane.

Peter1469
12-05-2012, 07:49 AM
Some ideas are just crappy.

Cow manure to energy. (http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/renewable_energy_from_cows.htm)

Factory farms produce massive amounts of potential fuel. All of that crap creates a serious pollution issue.

Chloe
12-05-2012, 10:30 PM
Reducing the amount of cars and trucks on the roads could help a lot too I think

KC
12-05-2012, 10:38 PM
Factory farms produce massive amounts of potential fuel. All of that crap creates a serious pollution issue.

Yup. Might as well use it instead of just letting all that methane needlessly enter the atmosphere.

roadmaster
12-05-2012, 10:42 PM
Reducing the amount of cars and trucks on the roads could help a lot too I think

Nothing stays the same. Just looking back 40 years ago, times were different. Always told my kids I wish just for one week I could bring them back to when times were honest and fun. Those days are gone but glad I was there. It would be hard to fix what is broken now. Materialistic things outweigh what was once.

Peter1469
12-06-2012, 05:53 AM
Yup. Might as well use it instead of just letting all that methane needlessly enter the atmosphere.

Not to mention the animal waste getting into the water supply.

Peter1469
12-06-2012, 05:54 AM
Reducing the amount of cars and trucks on the roads could help a lot too I think

That is not likely going to happen without using government force any time soon.

corrocamino
12-06-2012, 06:02 AM
Methane leaves the atmosphere much quicker than Co2, however.

Unfortunately, it won't be leaving the atmosphere as fast as it enters, as vast areas of permafrost thaw in the Arctic, we're told.

As an old codger in an erstwhile workplace (a)wryly used to begin each day, without particular allusion: "It is indeed dire!" (I have to agree.)

KC
12-06-2012, 08:51 AM
Not to mention the animal waste getting into the water supply.

True. I hear that's a pretty huge issue in the Chesapeake Bay area.

Taxcutter
12-06-2012, 12:15 PM
Getting the rest of the world to do anything is Mission: Impossible.

Getting the US to do anything within a framework that involves more taxation, more regulation, and transferring wealth to tinhorn dictatorships through the unimaginably corrupt UN ain't gonna fly either. The US taxpayer and consumer got skinned in the Ozone Hole fiasco - immense economic burdens and no results.


That said, there are things the US could do to drastic reduce its CO2 emission coincidentally with actions that would foster US economic growth and reduce dependence on imported oil.

1. Get government out of the way of a massive new embrace of nuclear power. The US gets about 20% of its electricity from about a hundred 60s and 70s nukes today. If the US were to build a thousand modern plants (that build on forty years and three nuclear failures' experience) we could reduce CO2 (and NOx, and SO2, and particulate) emissions greatly by using these nukes to replace fossil fuel to generate power. Electric power generation is the source of about 40% of the US CO2 inventory. In the 1970s the French borrowed the US Navy's nuclear power program and today 90% of their electricity comes from nukes. this step necessarily includes getting Yucca Mountain into operation and rescinding Jimmy Carter's Executive order prohibitiing reprocessing of spent fuel rods.

2.Once the thousand nukes are online, provide incentives to electrify America's freight railroad mainlines. This puts the emissions from a quarter-million barrels a day of refined oil going down those big engines onto the zero-emission nukes.

3.Get the EPA out of the way of converting the US automobile fleet to compressed natural gas. CNG costs 40% of what RUG costs. It burns cleaner than gasoline or diesel in terms of particulate matter, NOx, and VOC per gallon equivalent. CNG has much higher octane ratiing than RUG, allowing more efficient high compression engines. In industrial service, natural gas engines run for decades with very little maintenance. Today the EPA imposes a $10,000 surcharge on cars and light trucks and a $60,000 surcharge on over-the-road trucks. This governmental roadblock simply has to be discarded.

4.The oil companies are working furiously to find ways to economically harvest methane hydrates. Government's best role here is to get out of the way and remove legal impediments to building up infrastructure to implement this harvesting. This may mean a new Alaska pipeline (or two or three) and new LNG ports along the southern Alaska coastline. This is too good an opportunity to allow small-minded NIMBYs to tangle it up in court.

5.Once items 1 and 2 above are accomplished, the US government could then weigh in by electrifying truck lanes on the Interstate highways. this would involve catenaries, substations, and a comm link to bill truckers for power used. 10% of America's energy use is over-the-road trucks. This technology is used today in some big copper mines where the haul trucks have to climb out of the pit with one hundred tons of ore. Such trucks are perforce diesel-electric as no mechanical drive will stand up to that much power (typically 1,700-2,000 HP) in a high-shock environment. So the trucks run on their diesel to the catenary, hook up and draw on the stationary power for the hard climb out of the pit. In the highway scenario, diesel-electric trucks would operate locally on their engines (hopefully CNG by this time) and high the Interstates, hook up to the catenary and go on nuclear generated (zero emission) stationary power.

6.None of the above preclude a niche or two for wind or solar power. One way to get around the intermittent nature of wind power is to put industries on the Great plaisn that are not all that sensitive to short interruptions in power delivery. Metal melting processes fit this bill. Wind energy on the windy plains would produce most of the energy and quick-starting combustion turbines could provide backup power for electric arc and induction furnaces. the way to get such industries to relocate out onto the lonely plains is to offer a relaxed regulatory regime. After all, it is hard to amass much air pollution in a place with 25 knot winds blowing all the time. as in above items, government has a role in fostering this change by making it difficult for NIMBYs to legally block the construction and operations of such facilities.


My plan would reduce US CO2 emissions by a realistic 60% without economy-wrecking taxes and regulations. It would probably require three decades to accomplish, but it would definitely work and involves no new breakthroughs. If breakthroughs were made (for instance fusion power) the breakthroughs could be folded in with little disruption of the plan.

KC
12-06-2012, 12:20 PM
Getting the rest of the world to do anything is Mission: Impossible.

Getting the US to do anything within a framework that involves more taxation, more regulation, and transferring wealth to tinhorn dictatorships through the unimaginably corrupt UN ain't gonna fly either. The US taxpayer and consumer got skinned in the Ozone Hole fiasco - immense economic burdens and no results.


That said, there are things the US could do to drastic reduce its CO2 emission coincidentally with actions that would foster US economic growth and reduce dependence on imported oil.

1. Get government out of the way of a massive new embrace of nuclear power. The US gets about 20% of its electricity from about a hundred 60s and 70s nukes today. If the US were to build a thousand modern plants (that build on forty years and three nuclear failures' experience) we could reduce CO2 (and NOx, and SO2, and particulate) emissions greatly by using these nukes to replace fossil fuel to generate power. Electric power generation is the source of about 40% of the US CO2 inventory. In the 1970s the French borrowed the US Navy's nuclear power program and today 90% of their electricity comes from nukes. this step necessarily includes getting Yucca Mountain into operation and rescinding Jimmy Carter's Executive order prohibitiing reprocessing of spent fuel rods.

2.Once the thousand nukes are online, provide incentives to electrify America's freight railroad mainlines. This puts the emissions from a quarter-million barrels a day of refined oil going down those big engines onto the zero-emission nukes.

3.Get the EPA out of the way of converting the US automobile fleet to compressed natural gas. CNG costs 40% of what RUG costs. It burns cleaner than gasoline or diesel in terms of particulate matter, NOx, and VOC per gallon equivalent. CNG has much higher octane ratiing than RUG, allowing more efficient high compression engines. In industrial service, natural gas engines run for decades with very little maintenance. Today the EPA imposes a $10,000 surcharge on cars and light trucks and a $60,000 surcharge on over-the-road trucks. This governmental roadblock simply has to be discarded.

4.The oil companies are working furiously to find ways to economically harvest methane hydrates. Government's best role here is to get out of the way and remove legal impediments to building up infrastructure to implement this harvesting. This may mean a new Alaska pipeline (or two or three) and new LNG ports along the southern Alaska coastline. This is too good an opportunity to allow small-minded NIMBYs to tangle it up in court.

5.Once items 1 and 2 above are accomplished, the US government could then weigh in by electrifying truck lanes on the Interstate highways. this would involve catenaries, substations, and a comm link to bill truckers for power used. 10% of America's energy use is over-the-road trucks. This technology is used today in some big copper mines where the haul trucks have to climb out of the pit with one hundred tons of ore. Such trucks are perforce diesel-electric as no mechanical drive will stand up to that much power (typically 1,700-2,000 HP) in a high-shock environment. So the trucks run on their diesel to the catenary, hook up and draw on the stationary power for the hard climb out of the pit. In the highway scenario, diesel-electric trucks would operate locally on their engines (hopefully CNG by this time) and high the Interstates, hook up to the catenary and go on nuclear generated (zero emission) stationary power.

6.None of the above preclude a niche or two for wind or solar power. One way to get around the intermittent nature of wind power is to put industries on the Great plaisn that are not all that sensitive to short interruptions in power delivery. Metal melting processes fit this bill. Wind energy on the windy plains would produce most of the energy and quick-starting combustion turbines could provide backup power for electric arc and induction furnaces. the way to get such industries to relocate out onto the lonely plains is to offer a relaxed regulatory regime. After all, it is hard to amass much air pollution in a place with 25 knot winds blowing all the time. as in above items, government has a role in fostering this change by making it difficult for NIMBYs to legally block the construction and operations of such facilities.


My plan would reduce US CO2 emissions by a realistic 60% without economy-wrecking taxes and regulations. It would probably require three decades to accomplish, but it would definitely work and involves no new breakthroughs. If breakthroughs were made (for instance fusion power) the breakthroughs could be folded in with little disruption of the plan.

I don't agree with all of them but this certainly is a well thought out list.

Taxcutter
12-06-2012, 12:30 PM
Which ones do you not agree with.

BTW, energy and environment are what I do for a living.

KC
12-06-2012, 01:38 PM
Which ones do you not agree with.

BTW, energy and environment are what I do for a living.

It's a sound plan, I just have philosophical disagreements. You said that the US government would provide incentives to electrify freight railroad mainlines and to electrify truck lanes on the interstate highway. I have more of a problem with the former than the latter, since I'm not crazy about incentives, but while the government is so heavily in debt I think infrastructure spending at the federal level should be put on hold.

Taxcutter
12-06-2012, 02:19 PM
The quarter century it would take to build a thousand nukes is a sufficient "hold."

#3 and #4 would give instant gratification.

Professor Peabody
12-06-2012, 03:16 PM
What do you think are the best and most realistic ways of reducing our impact with regards to climate change? There's no real quick or immediate fix of course but obviously few major ways would be to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and move to more clean and sustainable energy sources, reduce the amount of harmful gasses and toxins we put into the atmosphere overall, and to change our habits as much as we can to lesson our own personal impact, but what else?

Nothing else to do. The United States and Germany are the only two countries to reduce CO2 emissions, the rest of the world need to follow that lead. None of it is even a drop in the bucket, so what's the point? The climate has changed untold numbers of time in the last 4 Billion years. It's the reason that's in dispute.

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? Since we know without speculation that the above warming existed without fossil fuels being burned due to the fossils being found there, the burden of proof is on the scientists to prove that the burning fossil materials is fueling the warming. So far none of them that I know of has put their careers on the line by stating an absolute YES, burning fossil fuels is causing the latest warming trend. We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. If they can't prove the latest warm period it's man made, then you can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again and there simply isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/about.html

Professor Peabody
12-06-2012, 03:22 PM
A lot more people die from being too cold than too warm.

The $64 question: What is the point of the U.S. crippling its economy further when China, worlds #1 polluter, and India aren't participating? The U.S. is already one of the most energy efficient, low polluting countries on the planet when it comes to manufacturing. If we didn't have so damn many cars, it would be a low emission country.

Do you want your country to impoverish its economy meeting standards that its competitors ignore? Because that is what is really being advocated here.


AP/ December 2, 2012, 4:35 PM

Carbon dioxide emissions rise to 2.4 million pounds per second

WASHINGTON The amount of heat-trapping pollution the world spewed rose again last year by 3 percent. So scientists say it's now unlikely that global warming can be limited to a couple of degrees, which is an international goal.

The overwhelming majority of the increase was from China, the world's biggest carbon dioxide polluter. Of the planet's top 10 polluters, the United States and Germany were the only countries that reduced their carbon dioxide emissions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57556678/carbon-dioxide-emissions-rise-to-2.4-million-pounds-per-second/

The EU except for Germany and Australia need to get with the program and get busy reducing you own CO2 production. The United States and Germany are the only 2 countries to reduce their emissions. Maybe they need to start paying us for our reductions, and go after china for their increases.