Kyoto 2
Kyoto 2
(OP)
OK the last thread was too long!
This isn't really a question but:
Talk among yourselves about emissions and global warming and Kyoto.
To get started:
Emissions: bad - The world should try to form a world wide treaty that includes the USA.
Global Warming: Noone knows so why argue.
Kyoto: We can guess how it will turn out but won't truely know until 2012.
This isn't really a question but:
Talk among yourselves about emissions and global warming and Kyoto.
To get started:
Emissions: bad - The world should try to form a world wide treaty that includes the USA.
Global Warming: Noone knows so why argue.
Kyoto: We can guess how it will turn out but won't truely know until 2012.





RE: Kyoto 2
RE: Kyoto 2
Interesting
Do you have examples of these types of high performance at no extra cost buildings? Any suggested reading?
RE: Kyoto 2
RE: Kyoto 2
http:
http://www.alternativetechnology.org.uk/
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Kyoto 2
I know that building an energy efficient house sure costs a lot more. The energy savings will pay for it in the end but it is certainly more expensive in the upfront costs. I'm not saying it is bad but most people aren't willing to pay upfront for down the road benefits.
RE: Kyoto 2
RE: Kyoto 2
That would be like getting one of those hybrid Honda Civics for the same price as a normal Honda Civic. Sure you pay more for the hybrid but it is better on gas so it is cost effective.
RE: Kyoto 2
http://w
that says that 17% of the greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere are from outgassing coal mines. Now 40% comes from residential housing. So all other sources make up 43%? Cow farts, termite mounds, volcano pre-eruption events, and (by the way) motor vehicles, industrial engines, and industrial heaters seem to be a pretty big emission source that may not fit smoothly into the remaining proportion.
Do you have a source for the 40% number?
David
RE: Kyoto 2
Maybe they shouldn't, but in reality, they do. Home buyers will buy what they can afford, and that is based on what the financial organizations are willing to lend.
I agree with you when you say,
We're still talking economics. Kyoto sounds good on paper, but the solution is not going to be in treaties and political arrangements. Whatever course of action is taken, it must make economic sense to the consumer, the manufacturers, and the stockholders.
Political pressure can be brought to bear with tax breaks and incentives for the manufacturers. Maybe you can get clever with mortgage rates so the banks will lend the needed money to the home buyers. I'm sure there a creative opportunities, but ultimately, at least for now, I see this as an economic issue.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
Here is another link to my local municipal governance office: http://www.betterbuildings.ca/
Note that the pie chart is for a benign coastal climate that does not represent the rest of Canada.
In the US the figure is about 35% from buildings. In Canada it's more, due to the heating dominated climate (more heating fossil fuel use). Generally the greenhouse gas emissions are spread over buildings at 35%-40%, automobiles (including transport trucks, buses etc) at around 40%, and around 10% from industrial sources, and the rest is spread out from the "other" smaller emitters. Note that a significat part of the "industrial" use are factories that product building materials. Thermal electrical generating plants fall into the "industrial" sector.
RE: Kyoto 2
It is little things like:
Replacing just ONE 60-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent in every Canadian household (more than 12 million of them) would save up to $73 million a year in energy costs. It would also reduce emissions by almost 400,000 tonnes-the equivalent of taking more than 66,000 cars off the road.
That could help but will it be done?
RE: Kyoto 2
If I'm reading these things correctly, residential accounts for 18% of the energy consumption and 49% of the pollution? They have to be double dipping here (i.e., counting the emissions from electric generation of power consumed in housing as "residential pollution" and as "industrial pollution"), don't they?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for energy effeciency in construction and use of housing. I'm with Cajun that it would make good public policy to implement large tax credits for doing energy effectiveness properly (as long as the tax credits don't have so much "pork" added that no one can understand them).
My only issue is that the emissions in the references you posted seem like housing is a disproportionate share of the total.
David
RE: Kyoto 2
I think that 40% of the emissions I create would likely come from the buildings i live and work in. Although I'm not a lead smelter or a coal fired power plant sans scrubber.
RE: Kyoto 2
RE: Kyoto 2
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
Interesting article in the latest Canadian Consulting Engineer magazine at:
htt
for more reading pleasure.
RE: Kyoto 2
We know this. We have known this for years but why does it not happen?
What if we all drive small hybrid cars that get 4X the efficiency of large trucks? Then what?
Should we do this? Is it possible? Why does it take so long? What are engineers doing about it?
Can engineers do more then politicians?
RE: Kyoto 2
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Kyoto 2
All it takes is time and money. The question is not what to do, it's who's going to pay for it.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
We can't agree on global warming.
We can't agree on whether or not Kyoto makes sense.
However, there is something that is happening right now as a consequence of our lifestyles that no one can deny. SMOG.
In this season of smog warnings that has gross, -and more importantly, unhealthy - haze lying in even pristine wilderness areas I can't help but think that society is way overdue for a major change in the way it consumes. We are taking baby steps in the right direction but our mind shift, in my opinion, is happening at much too slow a rate.
RE: Kyoto 2
It's the "problem of the commons", people. The air is a common resource, as is the climate- as is the entire planet. Individuals feel that it's their right to take resources from and dump waste to the commons at whatever rate they can afford (economically) to do so, maximizing individual benefit- and maximizing collective HARM because there is no cost or an inadequately assessed cost associated with it. Unless you enter this economic equation to correct the imbalance, you have no hope. Shaming people into "moral behaviour" out of compassion and fellow-feeling doesn't work, but taxing them DOES WORK. Even if 100% of the tax money is wasted, the mere fact of the tax deters wasteful consumption to some degree. And the fact of the matter is, even if the money is spent inappropriately on schools and hospitals or even the salaries of bureaucrats, it's still not wasted- at least it enters the local economy rather than lining the pockets of some Saudi prince!
The problem is that even amongst the educated, knowledgeable crowd of engineers on this board, you still see the entitlement mentality. It's a feeling of entitlement that has these otherwise knowledgeable people denying the risk of global warming and sticking their collective heads in the sand about the rest of the effects of the wanton squandering of fossil fuels which is the NORM in North America at the moment. Far easier to deny reality and do nothing, I guess, than it is to advocate for change. That lets people have what they want- for now. But we enginers have a responsibility to be LEADERS in this charge. We're the ones who know how to make our societies give people the benefits they deserve without wasting so much of our finite resources. We're the ones who know how to make our society work without dumping huge waste burdens on the "commons", or on our kids or grandkids. With knowledge comes responsibility, and we're failing in that responsibility in a major way.
RE: Kyoto 2
HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: Kyoto 2
you should see the world on the other side of the sand I have my head stuck in...it is a world where population is not growing exponentially...where the needs of people come first, then the environment....
I too see the world you see, where science is manipulated to the point that it causes harm to people...where the real problems are ignored....where feel good thoughts and ideas are mainstream....taxes fix the worlds ailments....
I think as engineers we need to get somewhere between the two worlds....Kyoto is not that common ground though....
Bob
RE: Kyoto 2
Please elaborate on how engineers can be the leaders of this change.
Many of us are not in positions of leadership at work - and are not involved in politics.
RE: Kyoto 2
I was with you until the last paragraph. Unavoidable waste is bad (and an incredible amount of waste is avoidable). Government policy should work to right that wrong.
Failure to agree with Koyoto should not imply someone has their head in the sand. It just isn't ipso facto. Engineers do need to lead on getting rid of waste, but that doesn't necessarily mean blindly following politicians and news media over the cliff.
I'm working on a big project right now where I'm trying to find beneficial use of every erg of energy that would typically be wasted. Some of the steps are pretty marginal in the short term but they have ok cost/benefit in the long term. This approach will reduce emissions by a few hundred tons and heat rejected by a few billion BTU's a year.
If each of us approaches projects with a conservation mindset it will make a significanly better impact on the planet than "sticking our heads into the sand" and agreeing to the flawed tenets and "Dan Rather Science" of Koyoto.
David
RE: Kyoto 2
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Kyoto 2
I don't know of many politicians that have the stomach for any consumer tax that the economists will label as "regressive". We'll just move forward with very cheep hydrocarbons and stew in our own wastes.
David
RE: Kyoto 2
How can engineers be leaders in the push toward energy efficiency? We can do this in many ways. Here are a few suggestions:
- stop debating the human causes of global warming for one thing. There are enough known, proven harms resulting from the production and consumption of fossil fuels that global warming is essentially irrelevant
- focus on energy efficiency in our designs. Clients won't spend capital to save on operating costs unless someone sells them on the benefit
- keep this issue in mind when choosing your job. Work for firms who are committed to a better future. That doesn't mean that you should stop working for hydrocarbon companies or car companies- quite the opposite in fact. It's in these very businesses that we can be of most benefit.
- advocate with politicians at all levels, both directly as citizens AND through our learned bodies and professional organizations and advocacy groups. Insist that at least an EQUAL number of dollars be spent on conservation initiatives to the number of dollars spent on new resource exploration and new energy generation and distribution infrastructure. It should be ten times the value, given that every dollar spent on consumption reduction actually IMPROVES the lives of people and the health of the environment
- stop selling the "technological fix", and fight it whenever it's presented, in whatever form it's presented. There IS no technological fix, and until everyone knows that, nobody will be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get the job done
These are just a few. Living what you believe is of course the most important. Hypocrites aren't listened to for long...
RE: Kyoto 2
Take atmospheric sulphur; about a third comes from fossil fuels. Land based regulation is well advanced and now its the turn of the marine industry; the first legislation came into force in May this year.
The legislation proposes to reduce atmspheric sulphur by limiting the sulphur in fuels.
LSFO (Low Sulphur Fuel Oil) includes diesel, Marine Gas Oil and some of the distillates.
The definition according to MARPOL which established its first sulphur emission control area as the Baltic, is fuel with less than 1.5% sulphur, the global limit is 4.5%.
Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) is widely used.
A couple of years back it was $180 a ton and the industry was wondering if they would get back to $135 a ton of a year or two before that. Today it is $260 a ton, for any HFO.
With MARPOL we now need both 4.5% HFO and LSHFO i.e. 1.5% HFO.
We currently have around 6.5MT of LSHFO and need 17-20MT by 2007.
So far so good but HFO is produced from refinery "waste" the residue blended with distillates so how do you increase production?
The two sources of LSHFO are residue from low sulphur crude refining or residue desulphurisation (RDS). Whatever the source, they are going to sell at the same price.
SO: to be effective the legislators need the refiners to invest in RDS but the high sulphur crude refiners are saying "why invest in RDS and compete at a lower margin with the low sulphur crude refiners who have no added costs? If we have to do something with 4.5% residue we'd rather invest in crackers and convert it all to distillate fuel, its more profitable"
Fine, so now the marine fuel instead of jumping $65 a ton (the expected premium for LSHFO) will probably climb much more due to the competion for the continuing supply of 6.5Mt in a 17-20MT market(assuming the low sulphur crude refiners don't also convert to distillates) and the losers in the marine industry will compete with land users for the diesels and distillates at a price somewhat above the current $519 a ton for MGO.
Now since HFO at $135 a ton represented 70-80% of the operating costs of a ship, what do you think a $520 (plus) a ton fuel cost is going to do to freight rates?
It is important that we have low sulphur targets but what price will we pay, rather, what price will we pay more than we ought to pay? According to one major oil company they don't think the legislators have even thought about how to ensure the supply of LSHFO that they need to achieve their legislative objectives.
Incidentally, most HFO is already below 4.5% so the global cap will make no change.
Most fuel in the Baltic is already below 0.5% sulphur but, because of the supply problem and making the LSHFO go further, 0.5% LSHFO will be blended with 4.5% HFO to make 1.5% HFO .... are you with that? it means that in the first declared low sulphur region the atmospheric sulphur will actually increase significantly.
Of course the legislation will change and the limit will reduce to 0.75% or even 0.5% and more low sulphur regions will be declared but legislating the targets isn't going to secure the necessary fuel supplies.
Any one got a solution?
By the way, in my paper today the French want to start work on the first Fusion reactor and Greenpeace is opposed.
Are we in the twilight zone or what?
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Kyoto 2
corus
RE: Kyoto 2
What sort of guarantees do they want?
How will the design problems be solved without spending the money and getting stuck in?
6 billion is a lot of money, to you and me, chump change for Bill Gates and, in a multi national consortium deal probably a whole lot less than is being consumed in subsidies for wind turbines.
Most governments can waste that sort of money on beurocracy without even missing it, they can always get more... from you and me.
Besides when was it ever a case of government funding being either spent on this or spent on that? If the money isn't spent on this do they think it will be wisely spent on what they want? That argument hasn't worked with politicians since the dawn of time.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Kyoto 2
I'm going to repost my answer in the new thread on the International Thermonuclar Reactor where it now belongs.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Kyoto 2
www.iceagenow.com
RE: Kyoto 2
The perception that the summers are mild is just a normal variation of climate.
The important point stressed in one of the pro-environmental essays is that normally "mean" temperature changes by 1 degree in 1000 years, but when the "mean" temperature changes by 1 degree in 10 years, the results are drastic (for causing extreme weather, and upsetting the ecology). I don't recall the exact criteria ( degrees change per time elapsed).
RE: Kyoto 2
corus
RE: Kyoto 2
let's just reiterate the Kyoto fairytale, again
1) the world is getting warmer (cynic remarks except for the bits that are getting colder)
2) the world getting warmer is a bad thing (apart from those places that benefit)
3) the world is getting warmer because we are burning more stuff (as opposed to the sun getting hotter, or other natural causes)
4) if we reduce emissions of some gases it will actually make a worthwhile difference
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Kyoto 2
I thought the new technologies were meant to reduce carbon emissions? Wow!
RE: Kyoto 2
(1) it required the US co-operation and didn't get it; therefore continuing to commit to this plan is futile as it is guaranteed not to succeed.
(2) it didn't require the US comitment, in which case where is the problem?
As it is, Kyoto is in the "just a bit pregnant" category.
It may have been that Kyoto evolved based on an assumption (perhaps from the position of the previous administration) that the US would sign on the dotted line like everyone else.
My understanding (probably flawed) is that GWB didn't say "there is no such thing as global warming", though to jduge by many of the contributors here there is a division of opinion that might justify some doubt (though when the fire alarm rings you respond whether it might be a hoax or not) but that Kyoto unfairly affected the US economy more than any other.... for whatever reason.
At that point both parties should have worked to find an alternative that did satsify the US position and which everyone else could agree to. The old saying "there is more than one way to skin a cat"; there is more than one way to reach the objective.
However, there may have been some for whom seeing GWB and the US embarassed was worth more politically than solving the problem.
This is a problem with any legislation and perhaps especially with global legislation: the need to find a mechanism to achieve the objectives that doesn't unfairly advantage or disadvantage one or other party.
The secret of any good deal? both parties are happy.
The EU constitution is a case in point. Surprise, surprise, France and Holland rejected it, for different reasons, but a rejection none the less. Yet some politicians will not face the reality of the situation and move on.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Kyoto 2
The USA could solve the problem by saying that we will reduce emissions by using new technology. Instead of saying we will fight global warming by using new technologies but we will not reduce carbon emissions.
RE: Kyoto 2
- his country rejected the EU constitution he so fervently supported
- he was widely quoted for his undiplomatic comments on the British with a sideswipe at Finnish cuisine (made doubly embarrasing as French used to be "the language of diplomacy"),
- he just lost the debate on farm subsidies, his was a lone voice
- he lost the opportunity to offside GWB who stole his thunder by already conceding that he would cut grain subsidies if the EU cut its CAP
- Paris just lost the Olympics to the old enemy London
- Finally, Tony Blair is the last person he wants to see as the next President of the EU (or whatever it is they each take turns at; the exclusive control group that is, I have no idea when Estonia will get a turn in charge)yet that means yet more english cuisine (this weekat G8 will they offer him haggis again?
.All this after the very PC British renamed the Wellington Chamber at Windsor Castle the "Music Room" recently and at the Navy Review the Navy tactfully referred to a tall ships battle re-enactment as "Red Vs Blue" rather than Traffalgar, which everyone knew it really was. These efforts point up his undiplomatic comments and recent confrontational behaviour even more.
Now, who can tell me that he will be completly objective when they discuss Kyoto? but just how many others will be any similarly less objective for whatever public or private motives?
The point is that there is the "human" element to consider and while engineers may be logical beings (see thread1010-126394), the rest of the human race isn't and we'd better not set our expectations of Kyoto to high.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Kyoto 2
Comments about English cuisine were laughed off in the UK as having a certain grain of truth about them although we have no idea what Finnish cuisine is like. His comments are probably in the same league as Prince Phillip's comments about the Hungarians (beer bellies), Chinese (slanty eyed), and various other countries too numerous to mention. Leaders do have a tendency to say quite stupid things, and one stands out in particular. Taking of whom, I believe GW Bush (the lone voice at the G8) has agreed that climate change has to be tackled and that human activity was, to some extent, to blame htt
corus
RE: Kyoto 2
unlike comments on the British Royal family in another thread, this is a legitimate concern and presented as such, even if with a "light" tone.
The motives and intentions of the various members of the group discussing Kyoto are certainly relevant to our expectations of the outcome.
Indeed, many may feel that recent history has shown that politicians are increasingly prone to act in anything other than the interests of the people and some have paid the price including Margeret Thatcher, Chancellor Kohl and quite a number of other leaders.
That the french president is having a tough time (and his potential successor) is commented on extensively in the press.
In fact, the press and even the president himself have just now commented on his commitment to the talks.
I note that this concern so evidently does not extend to other (non-French) delegates that their commitment has not been called into question nor have they felt it necessary to make similar declarations.
It is not unknown for politicians under pressure to act in the interests of securing their domestic position even if they must thus act against the international interest. I'm sure we can all identify many such instances.
Thus this is not "French bashing" but "French President bashing"; amongst which practiioners one may find a substantial proportion of the French population. My remarks are directed at the one member with such evident problems that such concerns are justified.
I will go further, the success of the British in winning the 2012 olympics prompted the press to comment that the British Prme Minister may now feel sufficiently secure to adapt his own policy with regard to his potential successor, George Brown to the extent that he may not step down in his favour as early as some might like.
On the IOC decision, the press speculated that it was the attitude of the French President that may have influenced the votes of some of the IOC and they have included in that speculation the two Finnish members of the IOC).
Indeed the French confidence in winning was so great that Tony Blairs assistant, Mr Powers handed the phone to Mr Blair in Scotland to let him hear the IOC decision first hand saying "Here is the bad news" while in France they were so far convinced, and with some justification, that they would win, they had red carpets out and champagne chilling. In other words, a number of delegates may have been influenced not by the facts but by personalities.
If this doesn't exhibit to you that my interpretation is both pertinent and based in the realities of politics then I am not sure how better to respond except to say that I will appologise for the tone of my remarks to all those it has offended but not for the content or the concerns expressed.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Kyoto 2
What leaders attitude was it that made New York not even in the running?
RE: Kyoto 2
" Fuel consumption of one American is equivalent to that of two Germans,5 Chinese, 30 Indians, 100 Africans and 300 Nepalese. Our major problem is wateful use of minerals in rich countries".
He further states that
" We all saw what happened at the last (2001) Group of 8 Summit. US President George Bush withdrew from Kyoto Protocol, which asks developed countries to curtail their fuel consumption and developing countries to increase their consumption."
RE: Kyoto 2
However, we could pollute ourselves to death or to a miserable state well before then. Global warming may be happening, and I would guess that it is (because of man) far faster than the natural ice cooling we are in. There are some very rich coastal areas in North America that will be harmed by warming and there are some very poor areas that will benefit from warming (but not by pollution). But because any change reduces the optimization we are at, the net affect in the world is negative.
It is deplorable that in the USA a single large vehicle shuttles one person around at a large cost to the world. It is bad to want politics and government to solve everything. However, pollution is one area I believe governments should be the main force.
moltenmetal gave several positive suggestions and is to be applauded. We can all contact our local politicians. Warming may be unimportant, but pollution is. Ask your local politicians to be Statesemen and to support the short term costs of pollution reduction and studies of warming.
RE: Kyoto 2
"It is deplorable that in the USA a single large vehicle
shuttles one person around at a large cost to the world."
Had this been the predominant point of view since the stone age, well, we would still be in the stone age... Come on, doesn't a thrilling expedition to Mars make life on earth worth living? At least for engineers?
I think mankind will never pollute itself to death. We're too intelligent. The reason why nobody's acting yet is because the global warming isn't visible enough (or at all, depending whom you listen to). We've heard too many times that the end is at hand. I don't think it is. Very simplistically, let's keep an eye on that thermometer while we reduce our energy consumption, which is a good thing no matter what, and see what happens.
RE: Kyoto 2
RE: Kyoto 2
I thought the new technologies were meant to reduce carbon emissions? Wow!"
Here is a link to a paper from Nature which describes how we could control the global temperature while emitting all the greenhouse gases we want to.
fcurry2000@rogers.com/Paths.pdf" target="_blank">http:
enjoy.
HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: Kyoto 2
HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: Kyoto 2
Sorry for the confusion and poor choice of words. I was lookig for a way of avoiding "SUV" in order to avoid raising ire and chose "shuttle" instead. I think highly of the space programs.
RE: Kyoto 2
Most people are against Kyoto because they think global warming does not exist. Unlike GWB who thinks it exists but can't afford to help out. I guess all the other signature countries have lots of money to throw around.
RE: Kyoto 2
I disagree with that statement. I think most people who are against Kyoto are so because the treaty is flawed, ineffective, and expensive. They're not against the problem, they're against Kyoto as part of the solution.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
I could buy that story if I hadn't heard numerous conservative pundits, such as Tucker Carlson, deny that global warming exists or that it is caused by build-up of carbon dioxide due to man's activities. Republican politicians opposed to Kyoto have done everything possible to promote the view that global warming isn't a problem. Examples: the White House had an ex-oil company executive doctor scientific reports on global warming (he's since left the White House and gone back to work for an oil company); a House committee chairman has subpoeaned all of the records of three leading experts on global warming on the basis that they must be fudging their data since there is a difference between their conclusions and those of oil industry shills.
Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.
RE: Kyoto 2
Why is it flawed, ineffective and expensive?
RE: Kyoto 2
Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.
RE: Kyoto 2
Even if Kyoto is flawed it is the USA that could take the lead to improve it and implement it. However the USA is hiding from that option.
RE: Kyoto 2
RE: Kyoto 2
The comments above that rejecting Koyto was an Oil Industry conspiricy are simply silly. The "smoke filled rooms" that that statement brings to mind just don't happen. They probably never did to the extent that the muck rakers tried to make everyone believe. Big oil is doing more to reduce CO2 emissions than any other single group in the world. The largest producer of solar panels is BP Solar (look it up, you won't believe my links). Every major oil company has done extensive work on CO2 sequestration (it is in their annual reports, look it up), and when there is sensible government policy on the issue Big Oil will be the ones implementing the policy.
David
RE: Kyoto 2
Yes, we have gone over this before, but for those who are not familiar with other threads, I submit the Kyoto treaty is flawed, ineffective, and expensive.
From Kyoto Mechanisms
I think the environment is a serious issue, and requires serious consideration and action. I don't think Kyoto is the answer. Rejecting a wrong answer is not an indictment of a valid question.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
Read the book then think about the billions being spent by the Kyoto signatories. Three years of "research" went into the book.
HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: Kyoto 2
Alaska is causing buildings in Alaska to sink; and that the loss of ice is creating havoc for polar bears. He also blames current actions to prevent global warming on an environmental conspiracy between scientists and private funding agencies, ignoring relevant research supporting global warming caused by carbon dioxide funded by governmental agencies. It should be added that one of his characters considers the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer a fiction akin to the global warming issue.
Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.
RE: Kyoto 2
JTreglio claimed "He very carefully selects his data to make it appear that there is no warming"
Those statements are directly contradictory.
So, who paid attention when they were reading the book?
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Kyoto 2
RE: Kyoto 2
RE: Kyoto 2
I can easily understand how someone might think Mr. Crichton was against global warming, and maybe he is, but I think what he's really against is how the politics of FUD get in the way of real science. Global warming is the FUD "cause de jour", and so was the vehicle Mr. Crichton used for the novel. Today, there is so much FUD about global warming, that we don't really know the truth, and it is hard to find a venue where real and objective science can be done, because politics control the purse strings.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
Yes. If you can't accurately recall what the author has written, then it reduces your credibility.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Kyoto 2
http://www.crichton-official.com/messageboard.html
were a very broad range of folks discuss every aspect of State of Fear in extreme detail. You'll see the range from "I'll never read another of his books" to well reasoned, well documented arguments both pro and con on the issue of "Human Influence on Global Climate Change". I was a lot more impressed with that discussion than with this "he said, she said" nonsense.
David
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
www.muleshoe-eng.com
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
The harder I work, the luckier I seem
RE: Kyoto 2
RE: Kyoto 2
HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: Kyoto 2
Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.
RE: Kyoto 2
China is exempt from Kyoto.
Is it possible instead of being black and white it is a shade of grey?
Is it not a more accurate statement to say. China is part of the Kyoto treaty and they are exempt from the first round of emmission reductions.
Is it possible that as the treaty evolves over time that the treaty may help reduce the emissions in China by implementing emission reducing goals or emission caps?
This is how worldwide treaties could work. I know that the USA doesn't play well with others but it would be nice if they would play along.
Tell me again how countries investing in other countries clean energy sources does little for the environment.
RE: Kyoto 2
The reason that investing in other countries does little for the environment is that doesn't lead to any reductions, because of the credit. Let's say that country A is emitting x tons over quota into the environment. If country A invests dollars into developing country B, then A is granted a credit against its own emissions. In other words, country A is allowed to continue its emissions if it spends money in developing country B. That does nothing for the environment, but does move money from an industrialized country to a developing country. It would far more effective for the environment if country A were required to spend that money to reduce its own emissions, although that wouldn't help the economy in country B. It is another example of politics and economics over the environment.
There is no environmental gain by playing, on in this case, paying, along with an ineffective treaty, although it might do something for the image. That might lead to a reduction in snide remarks (
The environment is a serious problem, and needs serious solutions. I agree that the USA does need to do a lot more in favor of the environment. I just don't think the Kyoto Protocol is a means to that end.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
Perhaps it's time to start a new thread on the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development. At this point there's no way to know if this is just lip service, or if it will be a serious attempt to address environmental issues in conjuction with and in consideration of the economic impacts, but that may be a place to focus our effects to affect legislation.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
Would you agree that this would be a good system?
I would bet that the USA could make vast improvements to the Kyoto treaty with a little political power.
Let's talk about the differences between the USA cutting emmissions and China. I think that you will agree that the USA emits at a much higher rate then China per capita. Let's say that an americain has 20 lights on in there house and that someone in china has 2 lights on in their house. The Kyoto treaty encourages the american to shut off 3 lights to reduce consumption. Then the american says "Why do we have to shut off 3 lights and china doesn't have to shut off 3 lights."
OK back to your comments on the clean power sources.
If Canada emits X tons of CO2 and exempt country Y emits Z tons of CO2 then the total emissions are X+Z.
Now country Y builds a clean energy supply helped by Canada.
The total emissions now become X+Y-Reduced Emissions.
I understand that you are under the impression that Canada would just pollute more to make up for the reduction but I think you are mistaken.
RE: Kyoto 2
==> I think that you will agree that the USA emits at a much higher rate then China per capita.
Of course. At this point in time, the USA is considerably more industrialized than China and since China has 1.3 billion people to the USA 290 million, per capita comparisons really make no sense. Per capita, and using 2002 figures provided by the UN, 72 countries have higher per capita emissions than the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, and for the rest of China, 107 regions have higher per capita emissions than China.
See C02 Emissions per Capita
I don't know what American you're quoting, but that is not what this American is saying. This American is saying there is no benefit to the environment, and there is a significant cost to the economy, if the USA turns off Y lights at a cost of X million dollars while at the same time, China turns on Y lights. China is exempt because it's a development nation, one that will increase the number of lights it is turning on, not one exempt because it intends to maintain the status quo. In the end, you still have Y lights burning, they're just burning in different places. There is no net effect to the environment but at a cost to the USA economy.
In your Canada example, you're assuming that the clean energy investment is used to offset existing Z emissions from the exempt country. That's an invalid assumption, as the investment credit is not stipulated to be against existing emissions. Exempt country may actualy have little or no emissions (Z=0) before the clean energy investment. Nevertheless, after clean energy investment, country X may now emit Z + W tons. In return for the credit, Canada doesn't increase emissions, but is allowed to remain at X emissions. The net effect is actually a detriment (by W tons) to the environment, but there has been industrial development in exempt country Y. Exempt country Y benefits, Canada paid for it, and the environment is actually worse.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
I'm not claiming that the USA doesn't need to do much much more, but I do think the USA has done more than it's perceived to have done. As I've said before, there is much more that can and should be done, and this is the last time I'll say it, but Kyoto is not the place to do it.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
This would cause developing countries to actually have to reduce consumption or devlop more "greenly" to gain credits to sell. This would have a good effect on the environment.
Why has the USA not tried an approach like this one?
Also if the USA is reducing emissions were is all the economic crisis they are always forecasting?
RE: Kyoto 2
Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.
RE: Kyoto 2
I still can't quit get your arguement. If Canada reduces to 570 Mt and helps another country reduce there total by 10 Mt. For example shuting down deisel generators and starting up wind gnerators or putting better filters on a coal fired power station. Then why is it bad?
I'm sure the credit system could be adjusted and will be adjusted but it seems so strange to knock down the house when it just has a broken window.
RE: Kyoto 2
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
It is possible. However it appears for now that the USA will attempt to reduce unilaterally. It appears that the rest of the world will try this thing called multilaterally.
RE: Kyoto 2
RE: Kyoto 2
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Kyoto 2
RE: Kyoto 2
One problem with the "anthropogenic global warming" scenario is that convection is the major vertical heat transport mechanism - and convection is not affected by ghg's.
Then, we have the natural variability model which predicted 1998 as the warmest year, to cool now until 2030. Well, we'll see, but 1998 was in fact the warmest year.
So, why is the Arctic warming? Pollution. Real pollution, particulates decreasing the albedo of the snow covered areas, including glaciers. Sure, there is another reason - increased plant growth from enhanced CO2. CO2 is the closest thing we have to manna. People are a little greedy to want to prevent CO2 from increasing the third world's food supply.
RE: Kyoto 2
Are you saying that increased CO2 content in our atmosphear results in increased rowcrop production in some areas? Thus some people want to minimize this condition. But, then who are these people.
Regards
pennpoint
RE: Kyoto 2
Check this website out:
http://www.co2science.org
RE: Kyoto 2
Here's a pop quiz:
Match the following countries with the percentage that each nation's CO2 emissions changed from 1990 to 2003.
The nations are listed in alphabetical order.
Australia
Austria
Britain
Canada
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Japan
Luxembourg
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
US
The percentages are listed in descending order. Positive numbers denote increases and negative numbers indicate reductions in CO2 emissions.
41.7
36.7
25.8
25.6
24.2
23.3
21.5
16.5
13.3
12.8
-1.9
-2.3
-13
-16
-18.2
Bonus question: Which two countries did NOT sign the Kyoto protocol?
Answers:
Spain 41.7
Portugal 36.7
Greece 25.8
Ireland 25.6
Canada 24.2
Australia 23.3
Finland 21.5
Austria 16.5
US 13.3
Japan 12.8
France -1.9
Sweden -2.3
Britain -13
Luxembourg -16
Germany -18.2
Australia and the US did not sign the Kyoto protocol.
http:
RE: Kyoto 2
The extra CO2 was also way too little, or the effect too weak to have any impact on the coming ice age. Since we are in a secular global cooling it sounds good to attempt to hold back the cold, but I think the forces of nature are much too strong.
I think it an absolute shame to misdirect the international talks into the political threats involving a red herring, and an incorrect one at that! The pollution and toxin issues are far more important that is unarguably a bad thing.
RE: Kyoto 2
Alternative decision bases are:
- maximising my income (companies)
- maximising the number of votes I get (politicians)
- minimising the impact on the quality of my life (everyone else)
What will happen is very easy to predict:
- Every politician naive enough to advocate a significant reduction of CO2 generation (drive less, fly less, heat less, etc) hence impacts people's quality of life, will be voted away.
- Alternative energy sources will only be pursued if economically attractive, either because the price drops (subsidies, technological progress) or the oil price raises to insane levels (1000$/bbl, but OPEC already said it will line out around 50$ next year).
- Significant action to reduce CO2 will only be taken if CO2 becomes a major and imminent problem: the earth gets uncomfortably hot, my house gets flooded, or similar. Some melting iceberg on the north pole is NOT a major problem.
Meanwhile the discussion will continue, but how violent it might be and how convincing either side may think their story is, nothing significant will happen.
RE: Kyoto 2
The benefit more CO2 has for crop production in poor countries seems tenuous at best. To forestall the next mini ice age (200 years from now) seems futile with today's technology. The ice age 100k years from now should not be worried about now.
This argument might be the foretelling of problems to come when weather control comes into the range of possibility. At first I am sure that a benefit in one region will be at the cost of another.
RE: Kyoto 2
It's entirely plausible that we should be considering the retrieval of carbon from the depths to be *rescuing* it and returning it to the biosphere where it can do us some good.