Kyoto 2 17

[QCE]

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.

 

[owg]

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

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[JTreglio]

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.

 

[GregLocock]

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.

 

[ewh]

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

 

[TPNY]

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

 

[CajunCenturion]

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

 

[GregLocock]

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.

 

[zdas04]

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

http://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

 

[ewh]

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.

 

[owg]

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

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[JTreglio]

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

Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.

 

[QCE]

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.

 

[CajunCenturion]

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

 

[CajunCenturion]

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

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

 

[QCE]

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.

 

[CajunCenturion]

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

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

 

[CajunCenturion]

Two additional points I'd like to make about those UN Numbers. First, for the year 2002, the USA is 11^th 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

 

[QCE]

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?

 

[JTreglio]

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.

 

[QCE]

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.