Monday, June 04, 2007

Full Of It

When Preznut Bush announced just last week that he wanted the United States to take the lead in the battle against global warming, I rolled my eyes. Not only has Mr. Jesus shown little concern for the environment previous to this remark, he and his administration have actively looked to dismantle as many environmental safeguards as possible while allowing industry to call the shots in what gets done (and what doesn't get done) in the global warming fight. Therefore I didn't believe a word of Bush's environmental concerns and I think an AP article out tonight justifies my skepticism:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is drastically scaling back efforts to measure global warming from space, just as the president tries to convince the world the U.S. is ready to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases.

A confidential report to the White House, obtained by The Associated Press, warns that U.S. scientists will soon lose much of their ability to monitor warming from space using a costly and problem-plagued satellite initiative begun more than a decade ago.

Because of technology glitches and a near-doubling in the original $6.5 billion cost, the Defense Department has decided to downsize and launch four satellites paired into two orbits, instead of six satellites and three orbits.

The satellites were intended to gather weather and climate data, replacing existing satellites as they come to the end of their useful lifetimes beginning in the next couple of years.

The reduced system of four satellites will now focus on weather forecasting. Most of the climate instruments needed to collect more precise data over long periods are being eliminated.

...

“Unfortunately, the recent loss of climate sensors ... places the overall climate program in serious jeopardy,” NOAA and NASA scientists told the White House in the Dec. 11 report obtained by the AP.

They said they will face major gaps in data that can be collected only from satellites about ice caps and sheets, surface levels of seas and lakes, sizes of glaciers, surface radiation, water vapor, snow cover and atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch, a watchdog program of the Washington-based Government Accountability Project, called the situation a crisis.

“We’re going to start being blinded in our ability to observe the planet,” said Piltz, whose group provided the AP with the previously undisclosed report. “It’s criminal negligence, and the leaders in the climate science community are ringing the alarm bells on this crisis.”

So just as Mr. Jesus is trying to convince the world he actually wants to do something about global warming, he's cutting the satellites that would be used to gather the data needed to find solutions.

Yeah, he cares.

Comments:
reality, here again, the left shows it knows as little about energy and where it comes from as it does about money.

First, the new satellite plan calls for trimming the original design of six satellites down to four. That's hardly cancelling the program.

Second, do you think the US is the only country with a government measuring the state of the planet?

More important, do you care that most of the humans on Earth want access to MORE energy. Not less.

The poor of the Earth would love more of the benefits of abundant energy. The poor in most countries don't have air conditioning. If given a choice between supporting a reduction of oil and coal use OR building plants that would supply power to give them clean water and electricity for other purposes, you know they'd beg for the power plants.

No matter what we do in the US to curb energy use, the best we can hope for is a slower INCREASE in annual energy consumption.

Meanwhile, the developing nations of the world will see a RAPID INCREASE in power consumption. That's the evidence of increasing prosperity.

Thus, if you really want the world to use less energy, you must support poverty in its worst forms.

The best way to ensure reduced energy use is to support muslims in their goal of creating a global caliphate. They use little energy. But misery defines their existence when they are in control.

The second best method to reduce energy consumption is genocide.

As I hope you know, it is a simple fact that a growing global population equals growing energy consumption.

Thus, by eliminating people, the nations of the world will consume less energy.

Those are your choices if you want to "save the planet."
 
n-s, here are a few very unpleasant facts about the satellite program cancellations.

1) The satellites being cancelled are two loaded with scientific gear meant to observe and record basic data to measure some of the factors associated with climate change, not the four loaded with military gear. Guess who picked which weren't needed.

2) A scientist doesn't book space on A rocket, he books space on a particular rocket several years in the future. If that rocket gets cancelled, that equiptment DOESN'T go on the next rocket, it goes to the end of the line. Thus the experiment he has been working on for years is suddenly postponed not for a few months, but for a few years, during which time he gets to beg for funding to continue working on his pet project, and try to find another bunch of grad students to do the heavy lifting all that time.

The left understands energy policy far better than you suspect. Yes, the world wants more energy, a lot more. IF we don't convince people that unrestrained energy consumption will destroy life as we know it, they won't do a damn thing to curb carbon emissions, and life as we know it, etc.

The ultimate solution is to develop renewable energy technologies to the point where the world can survive quite well with limits to carbon emissions. IF WE PLAN TO LIVE THAT LONG, we and they have got to take intelligent action RIGHT NOW. We aren't there yet, and it's going to take serious effort, not talking about it for a couple of more years and resisting any real progress, which has been the Bush policy for six years already, with promises to stay the course for another two.

You see, it isn't a choice between letting the world's poor continue to be miserable and pumping more oil -- that's the way Bush looks at it. The third choice is developing renewables to the point that we can have economic growth without increasing greenhouse gasses, and we've got to fund the crap out of the scientists who can tell how to get there and how long we actually have to get there.

Which is the point of the satellites.
 
kicksiron, you wrote:

"1) The satellites being cancelled are two loaded with scientific gear meant to observe and record basic data to measure some of the factors associated with climate change, not the four loaded with military gear."

The left has claimed that we're on a path to Doomsday already. That it's a done-deal. If the left believes its own nonsense -- and it is nonsense -- then what point is served by the cancelled satellites?

If we're at the Point of No Return, additional data from more experiments tells us nothing new -- according to the left.

Meanwhile, I've got to laugh over this. Memories are so short. Memories are getting shorter the way microprocessors are getting faster.

It was not long ago that The Population Bomb was a best-seller. The human race was headed to its demise for doing what it does so gleefully, fornicating and reproducing.

The author of The Population Bomb made the Malthusian argument that the world would run out of food -- soon. A few years. Maybe a decade. Well, that claim was made more than two decades ago. We're still here. Now 6.5 billion of us.

At least the US government had the sense to know that regulating the copulation practices and subsequent reproduction occurring wherever humans were encamped was beyond control.

But the same wisdom and philosophical acceptance has gone out the window with the energy issue. Even though the DESIRE for sex and energy are two elements of life over which no government has dominion, people of the left want to claim dictatorial control over one but not the other.

Yet unlimited sex -- and hence, reproduction -- will lead to exploding demand for energy around the world.

You wrote:

"The left understands energy policy far better than you suspect. Yes, the world wants more energy, a lot more."

So not only does the left understand energy (a ridiculous claim) but based on your preceding statement, the left knows the people of the world want MORE energy. However, you and the rest of the left crowd are working toward preventing the realization of that demand.

Two million people in Africa die every year from drinking impure water. That's today. That's now. That's a problem that isn't even a problem in any country with a legitimate government. Water treatment is SIMPLE. But two million Africans die from bad water every year anyway.

Worldwide, smoking-related deaths are in the millions. Deaths due to alcohol consumption are in the millions. Illegal drugs kill many more.

Concrete indisputable social pathologies kill millions every year. But the left wants to ignore the hard facts of death today while it reaches into some fuzzy dreamland to fight a problem it claims lies in the future.

This lunacy reminds me of the Terminator movies. The early scenes of T1 show a future America of cities choked with polluted air. When the Terminator is sent back in time to the present we see the main seat of government power -- the police department in this movie -- refuses to understand this thing from the future. The only goal of the police/government is to destroy it.

With respect to Global Warming and its purported threat to our future, the left has assumed the role of Reece, the self-proclaimed semi-Christ/Paul Revere from the future. Reece dies for our sins, but in a little twist of Biblical story-telling, he and his Mary/Sarah create a savior/child who, with his feminist Mary mother, battles the evil that is slaughtering millions of people IN THE FUTURE.

In fact, Chicken Little is the correct characterization.

Culturally we are suckers for believing in manufactured perils. There's a reason science fiction is popular.

We tackle today's problems with stunning success. Or we learn how tough those problems can be. We have changed AIDS from a certain and soon death sentence to a condition many people live with for years. Unless the person lives in one of the world's many backward nations. Then, the problem is as virulent as ever.

Don't want lung cancer? Simple. Don't smoke. Yet people do.

Earth's 6.5 billion people would love roofs over their heads, heated, ventilated and air-conditoned homes and workplaces, cars, trains, planes, ships, and a zillion conveniences powered by electricity.

But you want to stop them. Good luck.

The population is flying towards 9 billion, the latest estimate of the largest number of people the Earth can sustain. This number keeps passing the previous Malthusian limit without any evidence of increasing starvation on the globe, except in countries where the governments mandate food shortages. North Korea. Cuba.


We are expected to reach the 9 billion milestone around 2050, long before we are expected to choke to death on CO2. No one is worried about mass starvation any longer.

What happened? We produced more food. Which takes energy. Problem solved.

You wrote:

"IF we don't convince people that unrestrained energy consumption will destroy life as we know it, they won't do a damn thing to curb carbon emissions, and life as we know it, etc."


Blah, blah, blah. Yeah right. Well, "life as we know it" today is quite different from life as people knew it a couple of generations ago. At least for people in progressive nations. On the other hand, some, like some muslims, haven't seen much change for a millennium.

You have to face facts. The wind, the tides, the sun, the rivers and any renewable resources are NOT sufficient to meet the energy demands of humanity. Period.

It will take the combination of all the renewables, nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas to power the world.

As an energy resource, wind is a rounding error. But if you want to put a wind generator in your yard, do it.

We've dammed every river worth damming in this country. There's almost no additional hydropower we can tap here.

Solar power, well, whatever potential exists is decades and decades away.

Ethanol is good. And we could produce more of its basic feed stock if global warming opened up some new land for cultivation. Like Greenland.

Nuclear. Well, go talk to the eco-nuts.

Coal. Great stuff. And we can clean the crap out of coal combustion.

Oil. The best. The vitamins for every economy. Oil builds economic muscles in free societies. Not muslim societies, as their poverty shows.

So here's a suggestion for you. If you're deeply worried about an excess of CO2, get out there and plant trees. Support a movement to plant trees all across the Midwest of this country. Leafy trees that inhale that CO2 and exhale oxygen.

If we're truly worried about too much CO2, then let's do what we have always done -- introduce something that neutralizes the bad thing.

Too much CO2? Plant trees that will absorb it.

One of the major problems facing poor countries is deforestation.

The poor people chop down trees for fuel. Do they care about destroying the forests? No. And neither do the governments of poor countries.

If people had other energy supplies -- like coal, oil or natural gas -- they would spare most of the trees.

By the way, do you recall some of the other big scares from the past?

Global Cooling? Nucelar Winter? The claim that the world would run out of oil by the year 2000?

You wrote:

"You see, it isn't a choice between letting the world's poor continue to be miserable and pumping more oil..."

Yes it is. You're just selfish enough not to care how long the misery lasts, as long as you think the world is heading in the "correct" direction with respect to more energy. The lives of millions, perhaps billions of people would improve dramatically if energy were readily available.

Of course this availability is a feature of capitalism and democracy. Since you oppose free access to energy, you, by extension, oppose democracy and freedom in the world. Your misguided energy theories are no more than a cheap cover for the perpetuation of dictatorships around the world.

And, to borrow your phrase:

"...that's the way Bush looks at it."

You wrote:

"The third choice is developing renewables to the point that we can have economic growth without increasing greenhouse gasses, and we've got to fund the crap out of the scientists who can tell how to get there and how long we actually have to get there."

Pure nonsense spoken by a guy who has access to all the energy he wants and therefore doesn't give a damn about the other 6.5 billion citizens in the world.

If you, with your knowledge of the world, were carted off to a poor nation from which you could not leave, you would change your tune about energy and governments within 24 hours.

Do you really believe that the emerging nations of the world will give a damn about some stupid energy policy originating in the US?

The left wants to legislate economic behavior that will increase global poverty by limiting access to energy. The legislation will fail. The failure will frustrate the left and create calls for more drastic actions.

I'm beginning to believe the left would go to war to spread poverty and ensure that poverty minimizes global energy consumption.
 
Bravo, Kicksiron, brovo.

no_slapzz, do you confess a touch?
 
n_s, going back to the original subject -- cancelling satellite launchings -- you ASSUME that global climate change does not exist. You are going against approximately 90% of the world's impartial experts on that one, but that's a valid position. The only way to find out whether it does or not is to gather and analyze more data. By cancelling the satellites, the administration adopts the strategy of the six-year-old who plugs his ears with his fingers and sings "I'm not listening, naa,naa,naa..." If you truly DOUBT global climate change, then you, and they, should be supporting further research. You don't REALLY suspect you could be full of horse manure, do you? The reality is that the primary opponents of policies that would presumably reduce the problem just don't want to change the way they are doing business and the profits they currently reap, and to hell with everyone who suffers as a result.

A lot of R&D on power generation is being done, and providing promising solutions, much of it in Australia. For example, they have developed improved biomass ovens that produce biogas and charcoal from farm debris -- the biogas is used for power, the charcoal for home cooking and fertilizer. China is HOT for their techniques to use in rural villages (google 'biochar'). Another Australian project, based on Swiss technology, exploits the temperature differential due to altitude, by building a thing that looks like a very tall smokestack with a greenhouse at its base. Air rushing up the column driven by the temp diff powers a turbine generator. Power generated -- small town sized, pollution -- zero, operating cost -- near zero. Chalk one up for the Ausies.

Take my advice -- don't try to tell someone from West Texas about water. In an agricultural city where the annual rainfall averaged 18.5 inches, it was as much the topic of conversation and study as money is in Manhattan. Some guys -- Americans this time -- have developed a ground water pump that uses something like a playground toy for power. Some kids ride, others push and the thing spins around, pumping fresh potable ground water for the village. Manufacturing cost -- a few hundred, operating cost -- kid power, greenhouse gas -- zero.

The US has about 5% of the world's population, yet uses 25% of world's energy. Add the rest of the developed G8 nations and we're up to 70% of the world's energy use. Upping the fuel efficiency of American cars/light trucks to 50 MPG (like China is doing) will save more oil than everything the entire African continent could do. We environmentalists aren't talking about depriving poverty-stricken Africans from improving their lot. We are talking about more efficient energy production and use, and less greenhouse gas generation, RIGHT HERE and in the other G8 nations. You're the one saying "F___ the rest of the world", not me.

I live in the part of the country where home solar is a no-brainer, as are solar hot water heat and adobe construction. It ain't going to happen, though, without government involvment, providing economic incentives, mandating that power companies offer credit for excess generated power (as much of Europe does now), and mandating changed building codes to get the process off the ground.

Has anything I've said here fail to improve the lot or prospects of the under-developed nations, or, for that matter, stick it to the average American? I don't think so.
 
Kicksiron, both great comments.
 
kicksiron, you wrote:

"n_s, going back to the original subject -- cancelling satellite launchings -- you ASSUME that global climate change does not exist."

TOTALLY, COMPLETELY FALSE.

I assume the global climate IS ALWAYS CHANGING.

You wrote:

"You are going against approximately 90% of the world's impartial experts on that one, but that's a valid position."

Really? Nonsense. The sudden concern about the CONSTANTLY CHANGING CLIMATE shocks the dopes who had assumed the climate NEVER changes.

The Earth has experienced Ice Ages, Jungle Ages, and dinosaurs once roamed the planet. As always, the only constant is CHANGE.

You wrote:

"The only way to find out whether it does or not is to gather and analyze more data."

Yeah, like we need more information to prove smoking cigarettes causes cancer. The climate is changing -- and there's nothing we can do about it because we don't know what our "remedies" will lead to.

You wrote:

"The reality is that the primary opponents of policies that would presumably reduce the problem just don't want to change the way they are doing business and the profits they currently reap, and to hell with everyone who suffers as a result."

Yeah, US auto companies are earning a fortune. The latest legislation will lead to shrinking employment at US car companies. But it won't change a thing in China, India and the other countries where prosperity is soon to arrive. In short, the new rules penalize America and give other countries a chance to seize our domestic and international markets. Brilliant.

You wrote:

"A lot of R&D on power generation is being done, and providing promising solutions, much of it in Australia."

Who cares about a country of 20 million people? Australia is an island land mass with resources, open spaces, and no people. Their energy solutions will not work in the US. There are 300 million people in the US and we live on the same amount of land as the Australians.

You wrote:

"For example, they have developed improved biomass ovens that produce biogas and charcoal from farm debris -- the biogas is used for power, the charcoal for home cooking and fertilizer."

Great. Wonderful. Are you suggesting there's enough biomass (a pleasant name for rotting garbage) in the US to offset more than a tiny fraction of oil, natural gas and coal?

You wrote:

"China is HOT for their techniques to use in rural villages (google 'biochar')."

Rural villages are close to disappearing in the US. That's another demographic trend underway. They should disappear. But, in essence, you're saying that rural villagers (those quaint charming pepole of fiction) can burn low-grade combustibles because the effluents will disappear without complaint in the vast open spaces surrounding the rural villages. Ah, for a return to the English countryside of yore!

You wrote:

"Another Australian project, based on Swiss technology, exploits the temperature differential due to altitude, by building a thing that looks like a very tall smokestack with a greenhouse at its base."

Great. Millions of towers clogging the skyline. Yeah. That idea will get the approval of Planning & Zoning Commissions.

You wrote:

"Air rushing up the column driven by the temp diff powers a turbine generator. Power generated -- small town sized, pollution -- zero, operating cost -- near zero."

More nonsense. This has the earmarks of a college physics project. First, there's no energy project with an operating cost of "near zero."

The fuel is never free. Never. Even if the fuel is laying around on the ground, the cost of gathering it and delivering it to the site of this ridiculous tower will add up to something substantial. It always does.

Second, any contraption needs repair and maintenance.

Repeat after me: There is no free lunch. Especially when it comes to energy.

You wrote:

"Chalk one up for the Ausies."

Wrong. But let them implement this crazy scheme in Australia, a country where total energy consumption is less than New York City.

You wrote:

"Take my advice -- don't try to tell someone from West Texas about water. In an agricultural city where the annual rainfall averaged 18.5 inches, it was as much the topic of conversation and study as money is in Manhattan."

Perhaps, then, you have noticed that water is political. There's enough water to go around. But we manage it poorly way too often.

You wrote:

"Some guys -- Americans this time -- have developed a ground water pump that uses something like a playground toy for power. Some kids ride, others push and the thing spins around, pumping fresh potable ground water for the village. Manufacturing cost -- a few hundred, operating cost -- kid power, greenhouse gas -- zero."

Another ridiculous idea. Really. See it for what it is: a cheap-ass attempt to obtain FREE LABOR to perform an important function.

Few people would permit children of playground age to work for money. But you want to promote the idea of exploiting their energy to become human water-wheels. Let the lawsuits begin.

Furthermore, like the wind, this power is unreliable. Moreover, the kids won't work at night. Anyway, this goofy idea harkens back to another day in that Olde English Village of yore.

You wrote:

"The US has about 5% of the world's population, yet uses 25% of world's energy. Add the rest of the developed G8 nations and we're up to 70% of the world's energy use."

You have an excellent command of the obvious.

You wrote:

"Upping the fuel efficiency of American cars/light trucks to 50 MPG (like China is doing) will save more oil than everything the entire African continent could do."

The key word here is SAVE. We cannot SAVE oil. We consume it. WE consume it FAST, FASTER, SLOWER. But we consume it. We do not SAVE it. It has no utility if it's in the ground.

The African continent is a cesspool of disease, corruption and ignorance. If the continent elimintates HALF of its disease problems, HALF of its corruption problems, and HALF of its ignorance, the world will witness a continent that speeds into the future. The high-speed move from backwardness to the 21st century would require a huge acceleration of energy consumption which would never again decline.

There are 700 million people in Africa. With a few improvements in health -- clean water, disease prevention, etc. -- the population will surpass a billion people.

They want houses, running water, and all the other appurtenances of modern life. The more they experience, the more they will desire. All of it requires vast amounts of energy -- much of which would come from Nigerian oil, as well as oil from Equatorial Guinea and other oil producing countries on the west coast of Africa.

You wrote:

"We environmentalists aren't talking about depriving poverty-stricken Africans from improving their lot."

Yes you are. But you don't understand your own nonsense.

You wrote:

"We are talking about more efficient energy production and use, and less greenhouse gas generation, RIGHT HERE and in the other G8 nations."

The BEST you can achieve with your misguided plans is a small reduction in the rate of increase of energy consumption. Like it or not, believe it or not, energy consumption is headed UP. Period. It's going UP. Because every individual in the world wants more of what is possible with energy.

You wrote:

"You're the one saying "F___ the rest of the world", not me."

Nonsense. By raising the cost of energy -- oil taxes, carbon taxes, etc. -- and raising the cost of hydrocarbon-powered machines -- imposing high miles-per-gallon engineering expenses -- new cars and other machines slip further out of reach of the poor in Africa and elsewhere.

You seem unable to grasp the concept of the AGGREGATE CONSUMPTION of energy. There are 6.5 billion people in the world today. Demographers predict 9 billion by 2050. Those 9 billion will use a lot lot lot lot more energy than today's 6.5 billion.

The extra demand won't be met by wind, hydro, biomass, or other goofy micro-step idea. It will take a huge commitment to nuclear and full exploitation of all the world's oil and gas reserves to meet the energy demands of 9 billion people who want the same stuff we have in the US and G-8 nations.

In other words, if 300 million people in the US and (how many people live in G-8 countries? Let's say 400 million) and 400 million more in G-8 countries consume 70% of the world's energy output today, we can be sure that this slow-growing segment of mankind will consume a much smaller percentage by 2050.

But our percentage will fall because the energy consumption of the Rest of the World will soar.

Conservation in the west means virtually nothing if we succeed at REDUCING poverty around the world. REDUCING POVERTY = INCREASING ENERGY CONSUMPTION, in a big way.

You wrote:

"I live in the part of the country where home solar is a no-brainer, as are solar hot water heat and adobe construction."

Like I said about smoking cigarettes, people willingly develop lung cancer even though they ought to know better.

You wrote:

"It ain't going to happen, though, without government involvment..."

Get me rewrite. You mean, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT IMPINGING ON PERSONAL FREEDOM.

You wrote:

"...providing economic incentives, mandating that power companies offer credit for excess generated power (as much of Europe does now), and mandating changed building codes to get the process off the ground."

Yeah. Since when is forcing a company to do business with a competitor backed by the government a smart thing to do?

US utility companies WILL purchase electricity from dopes with wind-generators in their yards. But the utlities buy the power at a discount from the price they charge for their own power. Sounds fair to me.

You wrote:

"Has anything I've said here fail to improve the lot or prospects of the under-developed nations, or, for that matter, stick it to the average American?"

Yes. Every idea you have suggested has substantial costs that you have ignored. You have also failed to see that any form of regulation slows or stops development in poor nations.

You seem to ignore the realities of life around the world by claiming that more regulations and higher mileage standards and more restrictions will improve the atmosphere.

Like I said, Many, many thousands of Americans die every year from lung cancer that resulted from smoking cigarettes. But rather than fight this death-inducing practice with real weaponry, the US does what the law allows. People are warned. But they still smoke.

Yet when it comes to air quality -- which has not killed anyone -- you want to turn the world on its head.

You and others are consumed by vague threats of bad air 100 years in the future while you willingly ignore today's huge annual death toll from drinking unclean water, smoking cigarettes, contracting easily prevented diseases, and genocidal governments.

Your imagination is holding you hostage. Too bad.
 
n-s, I have to amend one sentence above: it should have been that you assume climate change CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY does not exist. Global climate change OVER GEOLOGIC TIME does exist. The changes the earth has ben experiencing over the last few decades don't qualify. Human activity has long been a factor in LOCAL climate change (the deforestation of Lebanon, for example), but is strictly local, not global like what we're seeing. Global temporary variations have always existed as well, due to natural processes like volcanic activity (an example in our own US history is The Year With No Summer). We can be pretty certain that current climate change doesn't fall into that category, either. Human activity has only been able to influence global climate for a very few generations, depending on where you mark the starting point, and the preponderance of the evidence is that it has. Again, the only way to find out for certain what is really going on is to do the research. Unfortunately, expert opinion is that we don't have the time to review every last research paper over the next couple of decades, and we have to begin to act NOW. It is by no means certain that what we do will have the desired effect, but not doing anything is a far worse gamble.

I am reminded of the 1990 election for Governor of Texas. Ann Richards (D) was running against ante-Deluvian (R) Clayton Williams, a rich businessman. Clatie was close to being a shoe-in, but he opened his mouth one time he shouldn't have -- Talking with reporters about some catastrophic issue that is long forgotten, he joked "It's like rape. When rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." He took a well-deserved whuppin' in the election -- Bill Gates money couldn't have bought him the women's vote after that one. As to how close it might have been otherwise, four years later, Geo W. beat out Miss Ann, who had been one of the better governors in memory, by having a handler's hand placed firmly over his mouth most of the campaign.

Are you adopting Clatie's attitude about global climate change?

I have a fault -- I tend to present the facts as I know them, then assume the listener/reader will make the same logical leap (or at least A logical leap) that I have, based on what I assume is common knowledge. For example, I might say to a guy, "Well, the Colts QB pulled a hamstring in practice Wednesday, and the Vegas line is Giants by 21", expecting him to conclude I believe the Giants are going to win Sunday. Your conclusion that Australian innovation doesn't have implications world-wide caught me flat-footed.

The subject of biochar is fascinating. Using charcoal to enrich soil is a technique known more than 500 years ago -- it was used by a long-lost tribe of Amazonian Indians whose fields are still far more fertile than neighboring untreated soil all these centuries later.

Biochar isn't only of interest to farmers in undeveloped countries, as it could be employed in the central US as well. Today, stalks and waste are left in the field to be plowed under. It wouldn't use significantly more energy to collect them during harvest, convert them to charcoal, and spread the result on the fields come spring, and it would save at least a portion of the money paid every year to Monsanto for fertilizer. (It's far more effective as a fertilizer than plowing under.) The biogas might be usable instead of propane (another big expense), and several farms could go together on the expense of a shared operation. Farmers DON'T generally like change, but they DO know the economics of farming.

Similarly, the children's toy/water pump is a great idea. Children NEED a considerable amount of large-muscle activity, and they will get it however they are allowed. These pumps are to be placed in school playgrounds, where they are often the only 'toy' available, and they are a real treat for the kids. If the result is potable water for the village, even better. Did I not mention that the pump pumps water into an elevated tank, so it's a 24-hour supply? As I remember, the company that designed them is distributing them through an aid agency, at no cost to villagers, and most importantly, they don't run on petroleum products.

No, energy isn't free, but 'energy' doesn't necessarily mean Middle East oil, for us or anyone else in the world. Where we can cut back on petroleum use AND IMPROVE OUR LIVING CONDITIONS as a result, we are doubly enriched. That's the objective.

Malthus was correct in his logic -- he just didn't anticipate the "Green Revolution" made possible by ADM, Monsanto, Cargill and one other company whose name I can't recall. If the world is ever to carry 9 billion people, there will have to be a further "Bright Green Revolution", or something of the like, and that's likely to require more oil. Given that the price of oil is determined by supply and demand, and that overall energy use is going to increase both because of increased population and the pressure of life-style improvement, the price of oil would tend to soar to a point where only the wealthiest nations could have what they need. That's a recipe for geopolitical disaster.

Climate change only makes the problem worse -- I have a profoundly personal interest in how successful the Mexican farmer is, because I don't relish the thought of 40 million desperately hungry Mexicans coming across the border en masse. My Spanish isn't that good.

A world-wide shift from fossil fuel to renewables looks good as a solution to both problems. Even if the human effect on global climate change were fictional (which possibility I don't concede for a minute), it doesn't matter, because the same human response is in the best interests of every nation in the world except, perhaps, the Saudis and Iranians. Given the war in Iraq, I think it might be in their best interests, long-term, as well.

If I were disposed to cheat, I would say screw the research satellites; we have enough information already, and this is what we have to do about it. But I don't do that -- I say launch them. If the information they provide ultimately proves there's nothing we can do about climate change, I'll apologise, but I'll also point out that gasoline is a lot less expensive then, than it is today.

There's no imagination here -- it's all extrapolation and projection from observable fact.
 
kicksiron, you wrote:

“...we don't have the time to review every last research paper over the next couple of decades, and we have to begin to act NOW.”

Like I say, you’re fantasizing about a problem that has yet to cause a single fatality while you willfully ignore a raft of problems that kill millions of people each year. That is the demonstration of your condescension and disdain for all the people of the world who are the true victims of injustices.

Global warming is a non-issue. If you’re worried about it, start a movement to plant trees. That has the prospect of succeeding both legally and environmentally. But it is an obvious fact that you and the entire goof-ball gang of people who believe the sky is falling – more accurately that the air is fouling – will fail to achieve your goals unless you endow leaders with dictatorial powers. Of course even if the US were led by a dictator, the dictator could not change the atmosphere of the world. Other dictators would have different priorities.

Meanwhile, the poor of the Earth will continue to cut trees. They will deforest every region that is not served by modern energy sources. Thus, by implementing your crazy plans that will raise the cost of cheap energy, you will magnify the deforestation problem and accelerate what you believe is an atmospheric problem.

You wrote:

“…he joked "It's like rape. When rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." He took a well-deserved whuppin' in the election. Are you adopting Clatie's attitude about global climate change?”

He was beaten because he joked about a sensitive issue that had nothing to do with the election. Thus, you are mixing issues with attitudes.

Like I’ve said, there’s nothing you can do to prevent an unending increase in the demand for energy on Planet Earth. You can only tinker with the RATE at which we consume hydrocarbons. But the rate will NEVER drop. We will use every drop of oil that we can extract from the Earth because the price of oil will always compete with the alternatives.

Even if we embrace nuclear, ethanol, and all the small-potatoes energy sources, the economic advances of the world and the rapid increase in population will keep oil demand rising. Unless, of course, you want to slam the most vulnerable people on Earth, which it appears you do.

You wrote:

”I have a fault -- I tend to present the facts as I know them,”

In other words, you interpret the facts to suit yourself, which is evident from your comments. You do seem to believe that your vision is correct. But you ignore the fact that billions of people don’t care what you think. You have ignored group behavior and economic reality.

You wrote:

“…then assume the listener/reader will make the same logical leap (or at least A logical leap) that I have, based on what I assume is common knowledge.”

Wrong. The population of the world is not guided by a body of “common knowledge.”

You wrote:

“Your conclusion that Australian innovation doesn't have implications world-wide caught me flat-footed.”

Your following statement should tell you why.

You wrote:

”Using charcoal to enrich soil is a technique known more than 500 years ago -- it was used by a long-lost tribe of Amazonian Indians whose fields are still far more fertile than neighboring untreated soil all these centuries later.”

Yeah, the technique was so successful the Amazonian Indians disappeared. Why? Food shortages? Disease? Conquest by another tribe?

You wrote:

”Biochar isn't only of interest to farmers in undeveloped countries, as it could be employed in the central US as well. Today, stalks and waste are left in the field to be plowed under. It wouldn't use significantly more energy to collect them during harvest, convert them to charcoal, and spread the result on the fields come spring, and it would save at least a portion of the money paid every year to Monsanto for fertilizer.”

Your plan adds a layer of cost, labor and distribution to a farmer’s life. Ain’t gonna happen. Meanwhile, we don’t have food shortages in this country. Thus, we don’t need big changes to our agriculture industry. We need to match production with consumption, which is always tricky.

Furthermore, overabundance of crops leads to lower crop prices. Farmers want high prices.

You wrote:

“ (It's far more effective as a fertilizer than plowing under.)”

Says you. You are inserting your own definition of “effective.” You don’t account for cost and time. Neither is free.

You wrote:

“The biogas might be usable instead of propane (another big expense), and several farms could go together on the expense of a shared operation. Farmers DON'T generally like change, but they DO know the economics of farming.”

Sure. But no farmer complains about propane. The COST of propane is another matter. If your plan leads to cheaper gas AND no extra labor, it might get some attention. Otherwise, forget it.

You wrote:

”Similarly, the children's toy/water pump is a great idea.”
I realized this idea is actually a joke. Not a real plan. Much like Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.”

You wrote:

“Children NEED a considerable amount of large-muscle activity, and they will get it however they are allowed. These pumps are to be placed in school playgrounds, where they are often the only 'toy' available, and they are a real treat for the kids. If the result is potable water for the village, even better. Did I not mention that the pump pumps water into an elevated tank, so it's a 24-hour supply? As I remember, the company that designed them is distributing them through an aid agency, at no cost to villagers, and most importantly, they don't run on petroleum products.”

This idea is laughable. Now you’re suggesting the money to pay for these goofy contraptions comes from either donors or tax-payer supported social programs. In other words, lots of money will fall into the hands of corrupt people who can sell people like you on the idea that free labor from children is all it takes to power a water system for a village. This idea has all the merit of slavery. You’re thinking, buy hey, we don’t have to pay the children. They’re sweating and pedaling because they love it. They’re not forced to play with the playground equipment. Forget it.

You wrote:

”No, energy isn't free, but 'energy' doesn't necessarily mean Middle East oil, for us or anyone else in the world.”

True. There’s 80 billion barrels of proven reserves in the US on land and off shore that is off limits to oil companies. In other words, our own lunatic left is restricting supply, and that restriction has caused a major price increase.

You wrote:

“Where we can cut back on petroleum use AND IMPROVE OUR LIVING CONDITIONS as a result, we are doubly enriched. That's the objective.”

It is impossible to improve our living conditions if we restrict our access to and use of oil. We can improve the combustion process and clean the exhaust gases. But we cannot replace oil with an alternative. There is no alternative that is less expensive, unless we artificially raise the price of oil, which is happening.

You wrote:

”Malthus was correct in his logic -- he just didn't anticipate the "Green Revolution" made possible by ADM, Monsanto, Cargill and one other company whose name I can't recall.”

You meant to say Malthus was WRONG because he didn’t know humans were so inventive. That’s a major boo-boo on his part and it should tell you he wasn’t so smart after all.

He was an economist. Not a scientist. Meanwhile, at the time he lived, it was possible for a highly intelligent person to have some command of virtually all the world’s important knowledge. In other words, the entire sum of man’s knowledge of the universe in the 1700s was meager.

You wrote:

“If the world is ever to carry 9 billion people, there will have to be a further "Bright Green Revolution", or something of the like, and that's likely to require more oil.”

At least you understand this.

You wrote:

“Given that the price of oil is determined by supply and demand, and that overall energy use is going to increase both because of increased population and the pressure of life-style improvement, the price of oil would tend to soar to a point where only the wealthiest nations could have what they need. That's a recipe for geopolitical disaster.”

First, demand for oil is one thing. But supply is a contrived concept. There is a huge amount of recoverable oil on Earth. But through political idiocy in the US and Mexico, and by operational incompetence and anti-western hate in the middle east, the world artificially reduces supply.

Your sense of economics is very weak. You really need a basic course. Meanwhile, the fear you have about oil becoming affordable only in wealthy nations and the disaster you believe it would cause is the very thing you are attempting to cause with your crazy plans. But you obviously don’t see the consequences of your plan to keep oil out of the hands of consumers.

Meanwhile, oil IS a finite resource. We will consume it. So what? But we won’t hit the bottom of the well on one single day in the future. The end of oil will not come as a surprise. We will get there slowly, over the next hundred years? Two hundred years? Someday. And by the time we do, our brilliant scientists and engineers will have developed suitable alternatives.

Perhaps our democracy will regain enough sanity to build new nuclear plants. Perhaps we will cultivate more crops for ethanol as well as permit the importation of ethanol from states like Brazil. Cuba might even find a world market for its sugar crop if ethanol assumes a larger role as a transportation fuel.

You wrote:

”Climate change only makes the problem worse -- I have a profoundly personal interest in how successful the Mexican farmer is, because I don't relish the thought of 40 million desperately hungry Mexicans coming across the border en masse. My Spanish isn't that good.”

Mexican problems are the result of its corrupt government. Mexico has huge untapped oil reserves and a horribly mismanaged economy.

What’s funny about people and their goofy worries about global warming is their universal ability to overlook what happens when air gets warmer. Warmer air holds more moisture. Moisture-laden air is the air from which rain falls. If the planet gets warmer, more rain will fall in more places. Hell, it might even start falling in The Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia, where rain appears about once per decade. Imagine wheat fields in what is now Saudi desert!

You wrote:

”A world-wide shift from fossil fuel to renewables looks good as a solution to both problems.”

Consumers substitute one product for another when the substitute is cheaper or better. The alternatives for oil are neither.

But we can afford to offset some oil use with alternatives. Ethanol, though not cheaper, does employ domestic workers. But a big increase in ethanol use would lead to LOWER oil prices. If oil prices drop, then ethanol is less attractive under any circumstances. We could also fully exploit our domestic oil resources. That action would hit international oil prices hard.

You wrote:

“Even if the human effect on global climate change were fictional (which possibility I don't concede for a minute), it doesn't matter, because the same human response is in the best interests of every nation in the world except, perhaps, the Saudis and Iranians.”

Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are nations of poor people who are sitting on an enormous resource from which they barely benefit. Those countries have had nothing to sell the world for a thousand years. Oil is it. If you want to see them change into prosperous countries, you will have to neutralize the impact of islam. That is the economic disease that destroys economies. It is the “common knowledge” that has united muslims in ignorance for centuries.

You wrote:

“Given the war in Iraq, I think it might be in their best interests, long-term, as well.”

Unfortunately, the war in Iraq does not appear to be the war that liberates Iraqis from the madness of islam. But if we simply seize the oilfields and pay the Iraqis for the oil that is pumped, that will help them and the world a lot.

You wrote:

”There's no imagination here -- it's all extrapolation and projection from observable fact.”

Wow. Extrapolation and projection. Two techniques that make no room for rational thought. Meanwhile, what you claim as observable fact is really a superficial assessment of the most complex system that man has ever encountered.

Therefore, I doubt your ability to identify “observable fact” in this context.
 
kicksiron, if you're looking for a power company that answers all your environmental prayers, see Covanta.

Covanta -- stock symbol CVA. Trades on the New York Stock Exchange.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?