Global Extremes:8-29-07 NOAA says human activity to blame for increase in gases and hottest temps on record

[EagleKeeper]

So is each KW tagged with a ID from the power plant?

 

[BrownTown]

Yeah, all California's system does (at least so far) is make the coal plants go outside the state and then send the electricity in from other states. So, they can say they are producing less CO2, but really they are jsut importing their power from other states in order to meet their production deficiets. Kinda reminds me of Germany where they have sworn off nuclear power, but instead of replaing the nuclear plants they just buy the power from France which funnily enough has the largest percentage of nucelar in the world. Its just moving the problem from one area to another and then acting like the problem is actually solved. Im jsut happy I don't have to live there with their sky high energy prices.

My dad works at a power company and California is just a big joke to alot ofthe rest of the power industry. I mean take their deregulation mishap. It didn't take some evil geniuses at Enron to figure out how to play the system to make millions, anyone with a basic understanding of economics and power production could have done it. And their whole reliance on solar and wind is also pretty laughable. Again, anyone who has taken a few power system classes can tell you that having that much intermintent power can casue serious problems. Most plants produce power at a very steady rate, so its easy to contoll the power grid, but with wind farms you never really know whats going to happen the next hour, or the next day, or the next year. You can make predictions of course, but they are only so accurate. What it biols down to is that you need to buy alot of additional equipment to stabalize the grid which of course is convieniently NOT mentioned when they talk about the economics of solar and wind. I mean don't get me wrong, wind power is an economic source of electricity in many regions, but it CANNOT be the only source of power, not even close.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
CA shoots itself in the foot again? Coal reserves are so deep that we have centuries left, and new coal technologies are making it among the cleanest fuels out there.

Cleaner than Nuclear, Solar and Wind???

Nukes have radioactive waste, solar requires the environmentally-hazardous manufacturing of the panels, and wind kills birds. There is no perfectly clean energy source.

Your black-and-white view on everything is evidence of your lack of intelligence.

Call it stupid or what you want, people just are fed up with your robber barons.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
CA shoots itself in the foot again? Coal reserves are so deep that we have centuries left, and new coal technologies are making it among the cleanest fuels out there.

Cleaner than Nuclear, Solar and Wind???

Nukes have radioactive waste, solar requires the environmentally-hazardous manufacturing of the panels, and wind kills birds. There is no perfectly clean energy source.

Your black-and-white view on everything is evidence of your lack of intelligence.

Call it stupid or what you want, people just are fed up with your robber barons.

Ah, exactly... if I'm not with you, I'm with the robber barons. :roll:

You are free to stop contributing to the robber baron fund, Dave, by quitting your pig-like consumption of our resources.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
CA shoots itself in the foot again? Coal reserves are so deep that we have centuries left, and new coal technologies are making it among the cleanest fuels out there.

Cleaner than Nuclear, Solar and Wind???

Nukes have radioactive waste, solar requires the environmentally-hazardous manufacturing of the panels, and wind kills birds. There is no perfectly clean energy source.

Your black-and-white view on everything is evidence of your lack of intelligence.

Call it stupid or what you want, people just are fed up with your robber barons.

Ah, exactly... if I'm not with you, I'm with the robber barons. :roll:

You are free to stop contributing to the robber baron fund, Dave, by quitting your pig-like consumption of our resources.

Really? I have two vehicles that get well over 20 mpg and use Propane at home.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
CA shoots itself in the foot again? Coal reserves are so deep that we have centuries left, and new coal technologies are making it among the cleanest fuels out there.

Cleaner than Nuclear, Solar and Wind???

Nukes have radioactive waste, solar requires the environmentally-hazardous manufacturing of the panels, and wind kills birds. There is no perfectly clean energy source.

Your black-and-white view on everything is evidence of your lack of intelligence.

Call it stupid or what you want, people just are fed up with your robber barons.

Ah, exactly... if I'm not with you, I'm with the robber barons. :roll:

You are free to stop contributing to the robber baron fund, Dave, by quitting your pig-like consumption of our resources.

Really? I have two vehicles that get well over 20 mpg and use Propane at home.

Who cares about your efficiency when your actual consumption is so high?

More to the point, why don't you tell the rest how what CA is doing will have any effect on these "robber barons"? Really, c'mon, tell us. I want to hear how legislating a reduction in competition in the marketplace will help consumers and screw the evil barons. C'mon, moron, tell us.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
CA shoots itself in the foot again? Coal reserves are so deep that we have centuries left, and new coal technologies are making it among the cleanest fuels out there.

Cleaner than Nuclear, Solar and Wind???

Nukes have radioactive waste, solar requires the environmentally-hazardous manufacturing of the panels, and wind kills birds. There is no perfectly clean energy source.

Your black-and-white view on everything is evidence of your lack of intelligence.

Call it stupid or what you want, people just are fed up with your robber barons.

Ah, exactly... if I'm not with you, I'm with the robber barons. :roll:

You are free to stop contributing to the robber baron fund, Dave, by quitting your pig-like consumption of our resources.

Really? I have two vehicles that get well over 20 mpg and use Propane at home.

Don't forget about your gas guzzling boat.

 

[dmcowen674]

CO2 emissions have doubled since 1990's but still couldn't possibly our fault for rising temps according to the Republicans that make money on the increases.

11-28-2006 CO2 emissions have doubled since 1990's

SYDNEY, Australia - The rate at which humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has more than doubled since the 1990s, according to Australian research, the latest report warning about the high rate of emissions accumulating in the atmosphere.

Findings published by Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization also showed that 2005 marked the fourth-consecutive year of increased carbon dioxide emissions.

"To have four years in a row of above-average carbon dioxide growth is unprecedented," Paul Fraser, a scientist with the CSIRO's center for marine and atmospheric research, said in a statement.

The study analyzed a 30-year record of air samples collected at an Australian Bureau of Meteorology observation station on the southern island state of Tasmania.

Earlier this month, the World Meteorological Organization reported the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 379.1 parts per million in 2005, more than 35 percent higher than in the late 18th century.

 

[Vic]

Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

what is the people's republic of china?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

Not all, just a leader in it.

China's contribution is growing, no doubt, but the Chinese are still far down the list of top CO2 producers per capita.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

Which is why any environmental agreement such as Kyoto is worthless without being enforced on every country, no exceptions. If not, production of CO2 will simply be offshored.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

Not all, just a leader in it.

China's contribution is growing, no doubt, but the Chinese are still far down the list of top CO2 producers per capita.

The environment doesn't care about per capita.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

Which is why any environmental agreement such as Kyoto is worthless without being enforced on every country, no exceptions. If not, production of CO2 will simply be offshored.

Negative. China, for example, is aware of the problem and is taking steps to counter it. The technologies necessary to deal with co2 are going to be major Industries for whoever discovers/developes them first. The Industrialized Nations, including the US, were given the first kick at the can with Kyoto as an incentive. The foot dragging over Kyoto gives China an opportunity to catch up and possibbly make the Profits.

As has been said ad nauseum, Kyoto is only the begining of what needs to be done.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

Which is why any environmental agreement such as Kyoto is worthless without being enforced on every country, no exceptions. If not, production of CO2 will simply be offshored.

Negative. China, for example, is aware of the problem and is taking steps to counter it. The technologies necessary to deal with co2 are going to be major Industries for whoever discovers/developes them first. The Industrialized Nations, including the US, were given the first kick at the can with Kyoto as an incentive. The foot dragging over Kyoto gives China an opportunity to catch up and possibbly make the Profits.

As has been said ad nauseum, Kyoto is only the begining of what needs to be done.

I'm curious how your argument accounts for the fact that China is the most environmentally-damaged country on earth.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

Not all, just a leader in it.

China's contribution is growing, no doubt, but the Chinese are still far down the list of top CO2 producers per capita.

The environment doesn't care about per capita.

So what? The US is still the overall largest single Producer. It's per capita emmissions are 6x the per capita emmissions from China. If China grows its' wealth equal to the US they may very well come close to the US's per capita emmissions and also overtake the US as the single largest source of CO2. The US and other Industrialized Nations have the Wealth to create the Technologies and implement them before China/India grow to such point where their CO2 emmissions become ridiculously huge. This is an issue that we can't wait for the level playing field before doing anything about. We could whine and moan about China, India, etc but the problem already exists and won't miraculously fix itself when China is the de facto largest source.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

Which is why any environmental agreement such as Kyoto is worthless without being enforced on every country, no exceptions. If not, production of CO2 will simply be offshored.

Negative. China, for example, is aware of the problem and is taking steps to counter it. The technologies necessary to deal with co2 are going to be major Industries for whoever discovers/developes them first. The Industrialized Nations, including the US, were given the first kick at the can with Kyoto as an incentive. The foot dragging over Kyoto gives China an opportunity to catch up and possibbly make the Profits.

As has been said ad nauseum, Kyoto is only the begining of what needs to be done.

I'm curious how your argument accounts for the fact that China is the most environmentally-damaged country on earth.

Moot point. How could they not be? They have nearly 4x the population of the US in a smaller area than the US, their Industry is not as Developed(ie not as clean amongst other things), their Infrastructure is not as well developed, their Economy is not as well developed. All these things add up to pollution of various sorts. As I said though the point is completely moot to the discussion at hand.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

Not all, just a leader in it.

China's contribution is growing, no doubt, but the Chinese are still far down the list of top CO2 producers per capita.

The environment doesn't care about per capita.

So what? The US is still the overall largest single Producer. It's per capita emmissions are 6x the per capita emmissions from China. If China grows its' wealth equal to the US they may very well come close to the US's per capita emmissions and also overtake the US as the single largest source of CO2. The US and other Industrialized Nations have the Wealth to create the Technologies and implement them before China/India grow to such point where their CO2 emmissions become ridiculously huge. This is an issue that we can't wait for the level playing field before doing anything about. We could whine and moan about China, India, etc but the problem already exists and won't miraculously fix itself when China is the de facto largest source.

Yes, but you're acting like CO2 is the worst of pollutants when it's actually the least, and actually represents overall cleaner emissions. Yes, yes, global warming is a concern, I'm not arguing that, but would you prefer that we were still spewing toxic gases into the air like China still is?

 

[Jeff7]

I really do love the attitudes here. There's a problem, but if we're not going to get help from anyone, we should just ignore the problem.

Why do we have police? Crime is a problem, but not everyone is a crimefighter. If we're not going to have everyone fighting crime, the criminals are just going to go where the police aren't. So why are we wasting our time on trying to stop an unstoppable problem? Because we can at least reduce its severity.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

Not all, just a leader in it.

China's contribution is growing, no doubt, but the Chinese are still far down the list of top CO2 producers per capita.

The environment doesn't care about per capita.

So what? The US is still the overall largest single Producer. It's per capita emmissions are 6x the per capita emmissions from China. If China grows its' wealth equal to the US they may very well come close to the US's per capita emmissions and also overtake the US as the single largest source of CO2. The US and other Industrialized Nations have the Wealth to create the Technologies and implement them before China/India grow to such point where their CO2 emmissions become ridiculously huge. This is an issue that we can't wait for the level playing field before doing anything about. We could whine and moan about China, India, etc but the problem already exists and won't miraculously fix itself when China is the de facto largest source.

Yes, but you're acting like CO2 is the worst of pollutants when it's actually the least, and actually represents overall cleaner emissions. Yes, yes, global warming is a concern, I'm not arguing that, but would you prefer that we were still spewing toxic gases into the air like China still is?

We are discussing CO2 here. Kyoto was primarily about CO2, but with a few other warming gasses as well.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I really do love the attitudes here. There's a problem, but if we're not going to get help from anyone, we should just ignore the problem.

Why do we have police? Crime is a problem, but not everyone is a crimefighter. If we're not going to have everyone fighting crime, the criminals are just going to go where the police aren't. So why are we wasting our time on trying to stop an unstoppable problem? Because we can at least reduce its severity.

Who's ignoring anything? What I see are people saying it's bad when we do it but not bad when they do it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I really do love the attitudes here. There's a problem, but if we're not going to get help from anyone, we should just ignore the problem.

Why do we have police? Crime is a problem, but not everyone is a crimefighter. If we're not going to have everyone fighting crime, the criminals are just going to go where the police aren't. So why are we wasting our time on trying to stop an unstoppable problem? Because we can at least reduce its severity.

Who's ignoring anything? What I see are people saying it's bad when we do it but not bad when they do it.

No one has said that.

 

[Vic]

BTW, China is slightly larger in area than the US including Alaska, not smaller.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I really do love the attitudes here. There's a problem, but if we're not going to get help from anyone, we should just ignore the problem.

Why do we have police? Crime is a problem, but not everyone is a crimefighter. If we're not going to have everyone fighting crime, the criminals are just going to go where the police aren't. So why are we wasting our time on trying to stop an unstoppable problem? Because we can at least reduce its severity.

Who's ignoring anything? What I see are people saying it's bad when we do it but not bad when they do it.

No one has said that.

Which is why Kyoto was so unequal in its enforcement, right? And why you defend said inequality, right?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I really do love the attitudes here. There's a problem, but if we're not going to get help from anyone, we should just ignore the problem.

Why do we have police? Crime is a problem, but not everyone is a crimefighter. If we're not going to have everyone fighting crime, the criminals are just going to go where the police aren't. So why are we wasting our time on trying to stop an unstoppable problem? Because we can at least reduce its severity.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about or are you just babbling?

Unless you plan to eliminate international trade, anything which limits CO2 production in some countries and not others will simply shift any manufacturing from the bound countries to those that aren't. The US may lower it's production, but it will be increased by an identical amount in China. Your net improvement is ZERO.