Global Warming: please debate

[Lord Toad]

Somebody sent me this!

 

The environment and global warming.

 

For a long time there has been a discussion about whether, and if, our abuse of this planet is really having any truly damaging affect. Well as a countryman I have know for years that things are changing. There are fewer birds among other signs. But now we are told that CO2 emission are punching holes in the atmosphere and as a result our living space is about to get less pleasant. We are told this is being exaggerated by our CO2 emissions as well as the indiscriminate destruction of forests. We know that some of the Worlds greatest rivers are now heavily polluted and that sea fish stocks are also dwindling. Of course some of Western Europe's greatest rivers were similarly contaminated during the time of our industrial revolution but we have managed to slowly reverse the trend. The only aspect, about what is going on, that surprises me is that it took so long to see this coming. Over the last hundred and fifty years we have pillaged the earth for everything we want, we have created vast conurbations with little thought about the poor planet and we have seen the population of man double and threatening to treble without anybody even mutteringâ?¦I wonder. Now we are being told in the West that if we stop driving 4 x 4s we can cut back our CO2 by an insignificant percentage. However is anybody looking at the other side of the World where accelerating industrial growth will more than make up the CO2 we will save by not driving 4 x 4s, not to mention the small issue of another 3 Billion people, thus increasing the existing population by 50%, due on Earth in the next forty years.

The real environmental crisis we have got is managing a World in which the population is doubling every fifty years. It may not yet be the problems of feeding those people but the problem of the waste in several forms that those people will inevitably create. Then there is the little matter of fresh drinkable water. There seems to be a head in sand attitude to this: surely there must a finite number of humans that this little planet can succour? But once again it is not PC to state the bleeding obvious.

Needless to say saving the environment is not that easy if you only control a few percent of it. Couple that with our obsession with full on democracy: reducing those greenhouse gases means a falling standard of living for some and a reduction in expectation for others. Once again the turkeys are deciding on Christmas.

Assume for a moment it is an ideal World and a central body can make decisions on all matters environment: what would they do first?

1. Stop and reverse all logging operations replacing the cleared forests with sustainable woodlands.

2. Phase out the private petrol/diesel driven vehicle in favour of private vehicle using clean fuel. This in time would include commercial vehicles including trains and planes.

3. Clamp down heavily on all factories spewing out gases and other pollutants: either they have to come in line, or close.

4. Confiscate and destroy any ship deliberately polluting the Ocean.

5. Create as environmentally friendly strategic mass transport system.

6. Spend money on research to find renewable energy sources.

7. Insist all white goods, among others, are fully recyclable.

 

In addition such a body should consider these options?

1. Build nuclear power stations because in the end they produce clean energy and hope Nuclear fusion comes along soon.

2. Control population by limiting births, medical assistants to deformed babies etc. and control medical science so people stop living longer.

3. Explore space to find another planet we can off load population to.

4. Move blocks of population out of Cold areas of the globe. A conurbation like South East England must heat up the environment around it.

 

Every body has their ideas on what needs to be done: however in our badly split World it is very unlikely any group, let alone any individual nation, is going to get to call the shots. And if they did would they really use that power: and anyway does anybody know the real answer?

So I am trying to put in a reality check here about what we seriously can do about protecting our planet. Massive conferences and protocols that take years to agree and are then junked by those who do not like it probably do more harm than good. In the end they provide an excuse to many for not doing what most should be doing. So what in the actual world will help.

Clearly the first thing there needs to be a proper public debate and awareness of what is happening, but that has got to happen in the whole World not just the Western World. The environment needs to be a basic subject taught at all schools at the most basic level. Media around the World needs to give prominence to these matters and if necessary carry advertisement encouraging good green practices particularly to do with recycling and waste disposal But most of all the environment must get to top of the political agenda. Then the issue must be removed from politics and political posturing. Sadly the reality is that is simply not going to happen. So we salve our conscience by picking on people who drive SUVs.

I am sorry to be so negative but with a World population that is exploding and totally political mistrust between so many peoples and nations it seems almost impossible to tackle the problem in any meaningful manner, other than token pin pricks.

I suppose that if the scenario of the doomsayers starts to materialise then maybe proper global action will be possible: although I fear by then, if the worst case scenarios are right, it will be too late!

I suppose the saving grace might well be man's inventiveness, which is almost certainly the main reason this is happening. Will we be able to device a technology or concept or manipulation that will be able to reverse the destruction of our planet?

The other hope is nature it self. Never under estimate nature's ability to do something: bird flue that kills off half the Worlds population would do the world a massive favour. Or will it be something else?

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

Probably what will help out the most is common sense.

[mattwasp]

I watched this the other week on the telly... REALLY good to see some actual science questioning the situation.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U

 

I will deliberately put my heating up by 1 degree now and wash all my clothes at 50' just to bump up my 'carbon footprint'

[pe7e]

I've seen a similar/same program recently and some of the arguments raised were compelling, especially as they were made by credible scientists. I recently read on news site (I've forgot which one) that research shows a similar increase in temperature has occured on the near planets, if this is provable fact, it would be powerfull evidence for the sun being the real factor behind recent temperature rises on earth. It's difficult to know which expert to believe, since they all have their own agendas, usually directly related to funding.

Another factor to take into account is our perception of the problem, human lifespan is tiny when compared to geological time and climatic patterns, so changes that appear dramatic to us, can be absolutley normal, it's just down to the fact we never seen them first hand before. It would also appear to be a provable fact, that the earth had a similar warm period back in the dark ages, CO2 was not a factor then, so other factors could well be the genuine cause.

[Guest]

Ice core samples have shown the temperature is rising faster now than at any point in the last 200,000 years...FACT. Global warming is occuring....what's causing it is the issue.

 

Too many interested parties are involved with this issue, from the US govt. interfering in research and downplaying the info to scientists seeking funding.

 

All the while it's getting warmer...fast!

[Mekong]

Which side of the fence am I on, very debatable but it is my job.

 

Before I left the UK I was involved in the Nuke Power Industry, Advanced Gas Reactors (AGR)and Pressurised Water Reactors later when they called me back (PWR Sizewell . As it stands Nuke is very good as a power source but the decommissioning costs are astromamical, Uranium 256 still has a 200 year plus half life after it is spent as a fuel, no one wanted THORP (Thermal Oxide Reprosesing) at Sellafield.

 

Hydrocarbons rule in Thailand, even I would not trust Thai Engineers with Nuke, Imported Oil or Gulf Gas? All Oil is shipped in from ME, before 1990 (first gulf war) it was mainly Kuwait sweet oil, post 90 it is mainly oman sweet, both feedstocks are sulphur heavy (industry talk).

 

The way Thailand is going now is to utilise its gas fields, the plan now is all hydrocarbon burning public transport in BKK will be NGV by 2010 AD, but I can't see it happening.

 

Emmissions has now become a factor down it Map Ta Phut, EAI are now forcing current producers to reduse emmissions by 75% before they grant a licence for new plants, and all new plants have have emmissions of 50% of revamped.

 

ie I need to bring emmissions of 100 ppm NOX down to 25 ppm NOX before we can get a licence for a 12.5 ppm NoX new unit, SCR (Selective Cataliic Regeneration) and TO (Thermal Oxidisers) for NoX and SoX, this costs mega bucks.

 

With one Client alone who happen to be the Thai Goverment Oil and Gas Company they have to implement circa US$350 million to reduce emissions before US$2,000 million can be invested into new infrastructure.

 

Khun Mekong

 

Oil n Gas with a Consience (dreaming of the day all Buses in BKK are NGV)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pe7e]

Ironicly they were using ice core data to 'prove' the opposite view, the point I was making is that it's difficult to know who is telling the truth. I suspect both sides are manipulating the data to suit their own cause and ignoring the bits that don't fit, plus the media never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. I think I'll wait a bit before jumping on either bandwagon, anyway the UK is in dire need of a bit of climate change. :smirk:

[Steve]

I don't know what to believe in terms of global warming. But I think the G8 group of nations need to come up with an alternate source and agree on timetables to adopt it. First, if the greens are right then we have to start now. Second, the mid east is a volatile region and the source of half the problems in that region is that the US and the west needs the oil there. Everything is directly or indirectly tied to that fact.

 

We all decide on an alternate use, the world will follow. Why? They have no choice if the G8 go to a different energy source. We remove the need for mid east oil and we'll remove the political, military and economic need to be in the region. Remove the outside agitant and the mid east will do what they always do...fight amongst themselves. Also, watch how long the various corrupt and/or incompetant leaders there stay in power when they can't blame the 'great satan' for the reasons why their people have no jobs, money and food.

[Flashermac]

It would be soooooooooo nice to be able to tell the ME oil countries, Venezuela etc to just f*ck off. But the oil companies in the west are not eager to see that happen. Otherwise, why isn't there a much more serious effort put into finding alternate sources of power?

 

 

[Steve]

I wish we could as well Flashermac but unfortunately big oil has immense power. And there are a lot of oil related industries who also lend their support to that industry as well and they make sure they have enough politicians in their pockets.

 

Personally, I think its a national security issue. How can we have an economy based on a resource we have no control over? Well, we do try by getting involved politically in the region which obviously has very dire consequences.

 

You also have non Mid East OPEC countries like Nigeria that squander their oil money via corruption and leave millions poor.

 

A change can be done. LA has the largest fleet of public busses that run on natural gas. If elected...haha...but in the states, what I would do is have the federal government and the states agree on a plan. Have all federal and state and local vehicles be fuel cell, hybrid or whatever is decided on by the G8. This would create an instant market for the car companies. I would also allow any consumer who buys such vehicles to amortize the cost on their tax returns. I would have most fed, state and city buildings have refueling kiosks. And if a business wants to have a refueling kiosk, I would put a moratorium on the taxes on the profits and let them amortize the cost of installation. Give the public an econoimic incentive and they will switch. Give the car companies an economic incentive and I assure you they will invent things you though unimaginable. I can't see how a nation that can make a plane you can't see on radar asl well as other techonoligies, can not come up with a technological solution to all this.