×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Kyoto 2
17

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.

RE: Kyoto 2

One of the basic problems is the need for tranformation of the building design industry in North America.  Buildings (and their products that go into making them) produce on average 40% of all the pollution in North America.  If you could design buildings that use half the energy, and more sustainable materials, you could meet Kyoto Targets fairly easily.  But at what cost?  North American builders have a bottom line/gotta build the cheapest thing mentality.  The issue is one of education for the fragmented building design industry - there is really no such thing as "integrated building design" going on except for a very few practioners.  It can be easily shown that a proper integrated building design can meet the 50% lower energy performance AND NOT COST ANY MORE TO BUILD THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING.  Had to shout that, because there is this reaction to "green buildings" having to cost more than a conventional building.  It just ain't so.  The problem is that the way the building design industry currently works, the designers don't have the expertise, knowledge, or experience to be able to pull it off, therefore, anything beyond the conventional approach is fraught with problems (read risk).

RE: Kyoto 2

GMcD

Interesting
Do you have examples of these types of high performance at no extra cost buildings?  Any suggested reading?

RE: Kyoto 2

SAMV:  yes I have participated in, and have tracked the costs of some very high performance green buildings in my area and have a file of Tender results and other material.  However, doing a google search on keywords like "green sustainable building costs" will provide a number of studies from the USGBC and other sources.  Yes, there is a design cost increase, but that only represents up to 1% of a total cost increase on the Project Costs.  It is my arguement that the current design costs are NOT resulting in "good design" in the first place anyway.  Witness the leaky condo and excessive energy consumption of typical North American Buildings.  You gets what you pays for.

RE: Kyoto 2

(OP)
Interesting about the buildings.

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

QCE- but that's my point- a "properly" designed energy efficient and comfortable house shouldn't have to cost more.  Increased costs in better windows and infiltration sealing should yield savings in the mechanical HVAC system (and associated electrical connections thereto).  The problem arises with how an energy efficient house is designed and built.  Houses seldom have a design professional other than an Architect involved (and most times, likely not if it's a "canned design"), and the Contractors end up doing a "design-build" HVAC system.  They are interested in selling product, and their financial remuneration is based on selling more/bigger product, so it is not in their interests to give you a break for smaller HVAC systems requirements in spite of the better house envelope and other energy saving features.  Like I said, the building delivery system is broken.

RE: Kyoto 2

(OP)
In Canada you can get rebates from the government and energy company for putting in better windows, heat pumps, etc.  I don't think that you can install triple layer argon filled windows for the same price as the cheapest window on the market.  I know a guy in Saskatoon that has as he says "the best insulated house in the world".  I'm sure that he paid alot more for it but he sure does save some money in the -50C/-60F winters.

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

2
Not to be argumentative, but I read a report this morning

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3W-4FN4VRP-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&;_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3b9aa75a04cea2b57645318ec8b8ca51

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

3
==> but that's my point- a "properly" designed energy efficient and comfortable house shouldn't have to cost more.

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,

Quote (GMcD ):

They are interested in selling product, and their financial remuneration is based on selling more/bigger product
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

ZDAS04/David:  here is a weblink to the US Sustainable Building Office:  http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/buildings/gbintro.shtml

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

(OP)
I would guess they mean space heating and cooling, water heating and electricity for a building give 40% of the emissions in Canda and the USA.

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

GMcD,
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

(OP)
David I think we are talking about human emissions not natures.

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

David:  Read the posts and the weblinks again:  It's all about "buildings", not just "houses".  Buildings include residential dwellings, apartments, high rise condos, hotels, office buildings, shopping malls, etc.  The emissions/pollution/greenhouse gases attributed to "buildings" specifically includes the heating/cooling and domestic hot water energy uses.  Many of the statistics are unclear as the what, exactly is included in the "buildings" contribution to greenhouse gases.  If you look at the electrical use for air conditioning as an example, the normal ratio (on a good day) is about 10% of the thermal energy actually gets used at the plug in the form of electricity due to line losses, electrical plant inefficiencies, etc. all the way down the line.  So, if you account for 1000kwh worth of burned coal or natural gas for 100kwh of actual electricity used, that can really skew the total emissions used directly for "buildings".  I don't have access right now to specific emissions directly due to "residential housing".

RE: Kyoto 2

Not only is the statistic unclear as to what is included in the buildings' contribution, the statistic is not exactly clear as what constitutes a building.  I think you list is accurate, but do buildings also include factories, refineries, and other industrial plants?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

RE: Kyoto 2

Cajun:  there are plenty of other sources for "greenhouse gas emissions from buildings" on the web, and in peer reviewed journals.  Those two sources I posted above were quick to hand.  Yes, one needs to be clear about what is included in "buildings" depending on the source, but it is clear to me from the bulk of the published data that commercial buildings (offices, warehouses, residential, mercantile, and the like- excluding "factories, refineries, and manufacturing plants") DO create a significant chunk of air pollution and greenhouse gases.  

Interesting article in the latest Canadian Consulting Engineer magazine at:

http://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/Issues/ISarticle.asp?id=165154&story_id=83252152316&issue=06012005&PC=  

for more reading pleasure.

RE: Kyoto 2

(OP)
OK so if we replace all houses with energy efficient houses and replace all the coal fired power stations with nuclear or hydro or wind then emissions would go down.

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

Ultimately, when we have eliminated all chemical emissions we will still not be pollution free since the one thing we do well is generate heat; our bodies and our machines.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Kyoto 2

I don't think anyone is advocating that we should be pollution free.  As you said, that is impossible.  However, we can be more responsible and less wasteful.

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

I was thinking...

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

6
The change won't happen until it hits people in the pocketbook and businesses squarely on the bottom line.  $60/barrel crude is helping but that isn't enough.  Even $100 crude won't do the job.  We North Americans particularly need a carbon tax NOW, with the funds segregated to benefit initiatives to systematically reduce consumption.

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

moltenmetal:

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

Moltenmetal - I like your thinking

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

Moltenmetal,
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

You do realise that a carbon tax encourages burning hydrocarbons (oil) at the expense of carbons (coal) ?

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Kyoto 2

The politicians (theoretically) get paid to find responsible ways to set and implement public policy.  Hopefully, they would behave rationally and not build a tax structure that forces movement towards dirtier fuels--wait a mainute, we're talking about politicians.  GregLocock, you're probably spot on.  

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

Yes, I realize that carbon taxes actually tax CARBON.  They discourage the burning of all carbon sources that are not renewable by making them all cost more.  They do NOT encourage the consumption of hydrocarbons- they merely discourage their consumption less so than they discourage the consumption of coal.  They discourage the burning of coal most of all.  Coal as currently consumed is by far the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, whether you consider CO2 to induce global warming or not.

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

As Cajun says, "all it takes is time and money", and I would add, a little joined up thinking by politicians.

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

When do they want the 50 years to start then?
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

Sorry Corus,
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

I thought we were heading towards an Ice Age per another thread.  Whats all of this Global Warming stuff?  Why have we been having such mild summers compared to 20 years ago?

www.iceagenow.com

RE: Kyoto 2

Slugger,
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

A graph on this site : http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ shows how global temperatures are increasing. Because Utah has had a mild summer doesn't relate to the rest of the wrold. In fact in europe (a land mass off the coast of america) had the highest recorded temperatures in the 1990s. In 2003 (or was it 2004) there numerous deaths caused by a recod heatwave in europe. The BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/global_change.shtml say that more extreme weather conditions will occur with greater maximum and mininum temperatrur variations. I look forward to hearing the lone voice of GWB at the G8 conference explain his denial of global warming.

corus

RE: Kyoto 2

Oh well, I guess I don't get an invite.

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

(OP)
Well GWB now says that he believes that global warming exists but he believes that it will be a slow process and it should be handled by investing in technology and not reducing carbon emissions.

I thought the new technologies were meant to reduce carbon emissions?  Wow!

RE: Kyoto 2

As I understand the situation, Kyoto is a failure if:
(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

(OP)
Actually the European countries wanted stronger targets but the USA wanted lower targets during the Kyoto summit.  The USA got its way and targets were lowered to get the USA on board.  Then the USA said hey these targets are too low they will not work so we are out of here.

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

The French President has had a bad month or so (a little sympathy please):
  • 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

I'm not sure why jmw has decided to go in for yet another bout of french bashing. It's getting a little tiresome to be honest.
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 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4647383.stm

corus

RE: Kyoto 2

Corus,
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

(OP)
Hey JMW,

What leaders attitude was it that made New York not even in the running?

RE: Kyoto 2

During  a national seminar on "Sustainable Mining Development" recently held in Bangalore Dr U R Rao an eminent scientist says and I quote:

" 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

Slugger926 is correct.  We are naturally heading into an ice age.
 
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

VisiGoth,

"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

(at second thoughts... were you talking about cars? when I read shuttle my mind goes Apollo 11, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, comets, stars, milky ways, parallel universes....)

RE: Kyoto 2

QCE asked - "Well GWB now says that he believes that global warming exists but he believes that it will be a slow process and it should be handled by investing in technology and not reducing carbon emissions.

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://ca.geocities.com/fcurry2000@rogers.com/Paths.pdf

enjoy.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Kyoto 2

Sorry the board seems baffled by this type of url. Just copy the part starting with http and ending with .pdf into your browser address field.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Kyoto 2

epoisses,
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

(OP)
I think you are trying to talk about sequestering CO2.  This is an option.  If it works?

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

==> Most people are against Kyoto because they think global warming does not exist.

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 think most people who are against Kyoto are so because the treaty is flawed, ineffective, and expensive."  

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

CajunCenturion

Why is it flawed, ineffective and expensive?

RE: Kyoto 2

Nice try, CajunCenturion, but the burden of proof is on your shoulders.  You claim it is flawed, ineffective, and expensive.  You explain why.

Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.

RE: Kyoto 2

(OP)
The USA said that they would supply a better solution then Kyoto.  As of yet no solution has been presented.  I highly doubt that one is on it way.  The USa as the biggest producer of green house gases just doesn't want to take responsibility for there actions.

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

Didn't the white house state once that it's all of those cow farts causing the problem? ;)

RE: Kyoto 2

Funny how we keep going in the same circles here.  All of the reasons that the treaty is flawed, ineffective, and expensive are detailed in the first part of this thread that got too big to open.  Those posts include several from people who were involved in the U.S. analysis that led to rejecting the treaty.  Yes, all of you knee-jerk Bush-haters, there was analysis.

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

To those who feel it's a partisan Republican effort, I'm sure most of you remember the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which passed through the US senate by a vote of 95-0 (including a No vote by Sen Kerry) in 1997.  For those who think this is a Republican effort, President Clintin was in the White House at the time, and a unanimous vote is hardly a partisan position.  President Clinton refused to even submit the treaty for ratification because he knew that the treaty was not worth the cost.  The flaws have been known for years, and by both American political parties.

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.

  • Trading Quotes - Of the 141 signatorites to the treaty, only 38 (Annex B countries) have actual reduction quotas.  The remaining 107 counties have quotes that equal or exceed their current emissions.  Those countries can sell their unused quota to another country.  This loophole (Flaw) does not reduce emissions (Ineffective), its simply moves money from one country to another (Expensive).  Additional reading: Russia’s Kyoto Ratification Spurs CO2 Trade
  • Deferred Emissions - A country which does not reach its quota today, can carry over the unused portion of their quota to a later date.  This means that any short term emission reduction will be offset by higher emissions over the long term.  (Ineffective for the environment)
  • Clean Development Method - A country can invest in a clean-energy facility in another country which in can use as a credit against its own emissions, and further, the facility can be used to created additional unused quota that it can buy back.  (Again, oves money around, but does little for the enviornment)
  • Developing Country Exemptions -  The International Energy Agency in Paris estimates that by 2030, China's emissions increase alone will equal that of all of the remaining industrialized nations.  China is exempt from Kyoto.  That creates a very difficult economic competition platform.  In addition to China, the worlds second largest emitter, exemptions have been granted to #5 India, #10 South Korea, and #11 Mexico.  Russia, the #3 emitter, does have quotas, but they are set high enough that no reduction is required.  In fact, as evidence from the above referenced article, Russia has quota to sell.  That's not very effective.  Further that leads to a direct economic impact in that for many companies, it will be cheaper to move manufacturing operations to these exempt countries rather than to fix the problems at home.  That is compounded by the economic effect of that many lost jobs.


  • From Kyoto Mechanisms

    Quote:

    The costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol
    One important question is: how much will the Kyoto Protocol cost? If Annex-B countries (countries agreeing to take up measures according to the Kyoto Protocol) are to achieve their emission targets entirely at home, global costs are likely to run up to several hundreds of billions of dollars in 2010.

    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

    I just finished reading State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It is a novel but it draws together scientific data to make an argument that, among other things, the atmospheric component of global warming will be minor. He agrees that atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that human activity is the probable cause. He feels that we are in the midst of a natural warming trend which began around 1850. Source temperature data (before massaging) can be viewed at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
    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

    I've read the book.  He very carefully selects his data to make it appear that there is no warming, ignoring such significant facts as that the Northwest Passage is now ice free in the summer and passage is no longer limited to ice-breakers; that the melting of the permafrost in
    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

    owg wrote "He feels that we are in the midst of a natural warming trend "

    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

    Does it matter?  Crichton is a fiction writer.  Granted, he does do his research, but how he skews it is totally up to him.

    RE: Kyoto 2

    I'm glad to see some Chemical and Industrial Engineers post on this thread, but where are the Environmentals?

    RE: Kyoto 2

    I can easily understand how both impressions may seem correct.  Mr. Crichton comes right out and says that global warming is taking place, but he doesn't jump on the global warming bandwagon.  In fact, I didn't think the book took either side with respect to global warming, because the book was not about global warming.  I thought the book was about the dangers of mixing science and politics, and the dangers of allowing political powers to control scientific funding.  I thought it was an effort to show how political forces were being used to supress true and honest debate on the real issues, because if you didn't say what the person who held the purse strings wanted to hear, you risked losing your funding.  In short, I found the theme to be that when the government controls scientific funding on the basis of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), that real and objective science becomes the victim.

    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

    ewh said "Does it matter? "

    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

    If we want to turn this thread in to a "Michael Crichton, Science or Fantasy" then we should probably adjorn to:

    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

    I was refering to using a fiction book as a basis for forming opinions on global warming.  CajunCenturion does make a good point about FUD, though.  It seems to be standard operating procedure with the current administrations.

    RE: Kyoto 2

    I sure don't want to get into a pi**ing contest on the subject but here is the quote from the Author's message in the back of the book. "We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850..."

    HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

    RE: Kyoto 2

    Thank  you, owg.  Didn't read the message.  I stand corrected.

    Jim Treglio
    Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.

    RE: Kyoto 2

    (OP)
    Cajun:

    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

    Has anything other than the first round been formalized?  I'm not aware that negotiations for the second round have even begun, but I would appreciate being brought up to speed on the status of the second round.  Thanks.

    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 (), but like the treaty, does little for the environment.

    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

    Here is some additional reading on the matter from Australia.  Climate Change  From that site is the following:

    Quote:

    Australia is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol as it does not provide an effective global framework for meeting long-term objectives. It does not include all major emitters and thus fails to address the issue of economic activity and emissions moving from emissions-restricted countries to unrestricted countries, with no overall greenhouse benefit. Despite the Kyoto Protocol’s entry into force, global emissions will be some 40 per cent higher in 2010 than in 1990.

    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

    (OP)
    As Cajun points out the Kyoto treaty puts quota's on countries.  If every country has a quota and over time these quotas are reduced then we would have a good system.  This is the way that Kyoto could be effective.

    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

    If every country had a quota, and had to meet that quota, then yes, you'd be off to a good start.  But the Kyoto Protocol is wayfully short of that on two counts.  First, not every country has a quota, in fact, 4 out of the top 11 emitters do not have quotas.  Second, countries that have excess quota are allowed to sell their excess quota, so instead of a country reducing emissions, it can buy additional quota from another country.  Money changes hands with no benefit to the environment.

    ==> 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

    Quote (QCE):

    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."
    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

    Two additional points I'd like to make about those UN Numbers.  First, for the year 2002, the USA is 11th on the list.  That's nothing to be proud of my any means, but even the big bad USA is not the worst per capita emitter.  Secondly, from 2000 to 2002, despite an increase in population, per capita emissions for the USA have actually gone down.

    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

    (OP)
    So if the USA said that they would join if every country had a quota.  Being fair to devloping nations like China and India.  For example the USA emits about 20 tCO2/capita and India emits 1.2tC02/capita it is unfair for the USA to expect India to reduce their consumption.

    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

    It seems to me that reducing emissions would help the US economy, not hurt it, depending, of course, on the means used.  If it can be done by improving automobile efficiency with hybrids and the like, then the net effect would be to reduce oil consumption.  Since the US imports its oil, this would lead to a better trade balance and improve the economy.  The same applies to reducing lighting -- lower costs to the consumer, less energy usage, better trade balance.  Then there is the actual business of reducing emissions, which will involve new technology, and demand for engineering talent.

    Jim Treglio
    Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.

    RE: Kyoto 2

    (OP)
    Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada has agreed to reduce its annual emissions over the period 2008-2012 to a level 6 percent below our actual emissions in 1990. Since our emissions in 1990 were about 596 Mt, this means that over the 2008-2012 period our emissions should not, on average, exceed 560 Mt.

    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

    There is no point in repeating ourselves, so I suggest that we agree to disagree.

    Good Luck
    --------------
    As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

    RE: Kyoto 2

    (OP)
    "It seems to me that reducing emissions would help the US economy."

    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

    (OP)
    OK Cajun thanks for the debate.  I enjoyed it.

    RE: Kyoto 2

    Thank you QCE.  I'm sorry that I was unable to present my thoughts so that you could understand them, even thought I didn't necessarily expect you to agree.  Nevertheless, I too enjoyed the discussion.

    Good Luck
    --------------
    As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

    RE: Kyoto 2

    Kyoto is just another way to weaken the US. First, who is going to enforce the rules if China, India or Russia breaks them?  Second, allowing these countries to pollute really doesnt do alot to curb pollution.  Third, kyoto will not please the enviro-whackos, they are charter members on the Blame America First crowd. Fourth, its all politics, I know Ive been to combustion plant permit meetings. All the DEP cared about was the hot botton pollutants of the day. Does anyone remember Dioxin? If yont Google Times Beach and Dioxin.  The Chemical industry kept telling us not to worry and they were right, but that didnt stop the closing of an entire town.

    RE: Kyoto 2

    Wow.  Long thread.  

    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

    LCruiser
    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

    I'm not aware of any crops that do not respond favorably to enhanced CO2.  Increases, of course, depend on other limiting factors such as rainfall and soil conditions.  

    Check this website out:
    http://www.co2science.org

    RE: Kyoto 2

    If Kyoto 1 was supposed to force countries to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions, then it was a bust.

    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://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051118/sc_afp/unclimatecanadajapaneu_051118131630;_ylt=Audp1QUiEttTU28E4eyEVqb737YB;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

    RE: Kyoto 2

    The poorer countries around the world should be thankful for the extra CO2, at least according to the scientists who did the studies.  The higher CO2 is better for growing the crops, although only fractionally.

    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

    The problem is: few people have accurate data and many people are biased, especially the ones who do have data. Hence we are forced to look for a different decision basis than sound data.

    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 major problem I see with the CO2 push is that it dilutes the real problems of CO and toxic pollution.  Perhaps some environmental groups glommed onto it because it was easy to understand and could be made to look like it hits home soon as epoisses clarified.

    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

    Agreed - it's one thing to say "cut down on the byproducts of combustion" - it's entirely another to say "cut down on the *product* of combustion.

    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.

    Red Flag This Post

    Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

    Red Flag Submitted

    Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
    The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

    Reply To This Thread

    Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

    Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


    Resources