Kyoto and Spin 35

[zdas04]

Recently I was talking to a group of engineers in Indonesia and someone said "we can't do that because, unlike the U.S., we have obligations to protect the environment".

That rocked me, and I asked what the heck he was talking about (we were in Jakarta and the air is so nasty that you can't see the next sky scraper). His response was that since the U.S. didn't sign the Kyoto protocols we must just be raping and pillaging the environment.

A Canadian collegue pointed out that the U.S. has been a leader in controlling air emissions for decades and that our air-quality restrictions are far more stringent than the Indonesian restrictions. This shocked the Indonesians.

What I'm wondering is how the international media has gotten to the point where its agenda is just taken on faith with no regard to facts?

David

 

[epoisses]

When I read the different reactions to Lomborg's book at the time (in fact the book would have got even more attention had there not been 9/11), especially from Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00000B96-9517-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF

it strikes me how weak the counterarguments are AND how violent and almost emotional the reactions. I can't help thinking of the pope vs Copernicus, and this fills me with great sympathy for the book and the author before having read a letter. But I want to stay objective at least for the moment...

 

[GregLocock]

I agree. While some of the arguments with Lomberg's work are valid, the overall way in which the Danish establishment, and Scientific American, behaved, destroyed much of the credibility of those arguments.

It ceratinly made me see SciAm in a new light.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[jmw]

"Never judge strength of foundation from size of building".

What a great quote from the Thomas Gold link.
On the numbers link I found the sub link

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

most interesting since it concludes that athropogenic impact on climate change is around 0.117% from CO2 and 0.28% agregate of all anthropogenic effects.....
and which leads to this link:

http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/euoncc.htm

A star for the link to numberwatch...

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

The EU is apparently beginning to suffer from its own unilateralism...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=03445f57-0777-4554-ac7c-ec63cb073223

Not only is it costing far more than was promised, we are yet to be convinced of the truth of the foundation argument.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[epoisses]

Yep the EU is plodding along without any support from the voters. They are occasionally disturbed by some contact with the real world (like the constitution voted away) but quickly back to business as usual, already talking about going beyond Kyoto...
The French news and serious (at least I thought) magazines like L'Express talk about global warming very often (some English coastal village being swept away by the north sea, item in the news the other day, interview with Al Gore in L'Express edition dedicated to global warming). Nobody though dares to explain the average Frenchmen what would have to be done to adhere to Kyoto guidelines and what it would cost them.
Anyway the more the EU will be diluted with countries with economies and CO2 emission rates in full growth (Poland, Czechia, Roumania, Bulgaria, Turkey....) the less diligently the Kyoto targets will be pursued.

 

[SnTMan]

From JMW's link: "The ETS's malfunctioning is partly due to an inherent flaw that allowed member states to allocate more emission permits than European industrial plants actually needed. Although Europe's energy utilities receive carbon permits free of charge, they have passed on the market price to industry and private consumers. In consequence, Germany's energy costs rose by almost ?6-billion ($9.2-billion) in 2005, a price tag that is expected to double in the next couple of years. The cunning strategy ensured that power companies reaped billions in windfall profits. And yet without the massive sweetener, Brussels could not have gained the support of industry for this risky scheme."

The whole thing seems like what is called "rent seeking", how else to explain the "inherent flaw" in a system created with so much effort by all these highly intelligent people? Unfortunately, most of public policy these days seems to be conducted on the basis of "rent seeking", at least in the US. A recent example is the prescription drug "benefit".

Regards,

Mike

 

[jmw]

Ah! the complexities of climate change.
A few links on and we find this link:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

And if you take a look at the wine entries you discover that global warming is good for the Germans and the British but bad for the French and the Californians.
Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out if these studies about wind turbines mean good news or bad:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/041109_wind_mills.html

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

This spinning globe is a lovely way to present data:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/images/HadCM2_IS92a+SO4_spinning.mpeg

Presented with none of the reservations made by the Hadley Centre Scientists themselves (see my links above)it shows temperature change from 1902 to 2090 (around a 4degC shift) and ends up with the globe a bright almost uniform red. Of course, if they wanted to go back and include the mini ice age and medievil warm period or include the more extreme of the IPCC predictions we'd need Infra Red and Ultra violet to disclose the full range of variations.
Good reading on this and other presentation gimmicks in the number watch site.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[RDK]

I think that the bottom line here is that we really do not have enough data to conclusively state one way or another what is happening. Few places have detailed climate records going back long enough and are verifiable and consistent to be of real value. Most of the world simply has no reliable climate records any further than a few years. We can impute the climate from ice cores or studying the fossil and sediment records or tree rings in old growth timber but this is not necessarily direct evidence and its interpretation is subjective.

I do believe that the odds are that human activities and pollution are responsible for global warming to be occurring, but that is more opinion than scientific fact. What is clear is that there are some climate changes ongoing; we just don’t know if this is a normal cycle or man made or enhanced changes.

There are two camps to this debate. One side is saying since we cannot prove conclusively that human activity is caucusing global warming that we should ignore it and carry on without regard for the consequences of our actions and the other side is saying that we are destroying the world. Neither position is productive to any rational debate on the issue.

Personally I believe that the environment is a lot like pushing a ball around in hilly ground. If we don’t push it over the top of a hill it will return to the previous equilibrium after we stop pushing. If we push it over the top of one hill then it will settle at a new equilibrium somewhere. Mankind is pushing the ball; far enough to have any lasting effect we just don’t know.

Unfortunately we don’t know where the top of the hill is or where the new equilibrium point is on the other side. It may be a better place than we are in now or it may be a worse place than we are now. The transition will however be a rocky ride.

Since we only have one world to gamble with I would take the conservative approach and cut back on emissions until there is proof that they are not the cause of the climate changes we are seeing.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[LCruiser]

RDK,
I agree with your analogy - I state it as a balloon on a field of rocks, blown about by the wind.

However, your comparison of the two "camps" is incomplete. There is a third camp which says that since it *may* be bad we should greatly increase research - however, if we cripple our economy we won't be able to afford that research.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> One side is saying since we cannot prove conclusively that human activity is caucusing global warming that we should ignore it and carry on without regard for the consequences of our actions
I'm not sure that's a very accurate assessment of that group. I don't know of many who are saying to ignore it and carry on without regard to the consequences. I think it's more like, "we cannot prove that human activity is causing global warning so we should not over-react and throw loads of money at what may not be a problem, nor waste billions of dollars on political agreements that are environmentally ineffective. Let's be prudent and reasonable."

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

 

[moltenmetal]

LCruiser: first zdas04, and now YOU with the "crippling the economy" comments! You guys question the validity of the data and arguments linking climate change to human activity, yet you provide no evidence that addressing greenhouse gas emissions will cause some sort of economic cataclysm- you're willing to take that assertion more or less on faith!

Reducing the amount of fossil fuels we waste will NOT cripple our economies. I'm confident that a focus on improving energy efficiency in all that we do will have quite the opposite effect. Not to mention it will be GREAT for engineers!

 

[LCruiser]

moltenmetal -

Here's some proof - companies are afraid to build new coal plants, so prices for natural gas are going up. It's now about the same as electricity for me to heat my home with my gas heater as with little portable electric heaters (by the joule).

The has obviously decreased my disposable income. How much has that effect, nationwide, had on disposable income? Probably $300 per year for me.

I'm all for developing alternate energies, but let's not lie about the reason why, and I would question your use of the term engineering (as in "great for engineers"). Science is suffering by all the smoke and mirrors on "global warming" - as science suffers, so does applied science (engineering).

 

[epoisses]

The cost of preventing climate change (IF it is occurring, IF we can prevent it, if.. ) is described in Lomborg's book I'm reading. I'm halfway now and will report some highlights in a new thread. I am actually very impressed by his work, which is verifiable to a great extent and which reads very easily. It is certainly not demagoguery. He asks very legitimate questions about global warming, but also starvation, poverty, extinction of species. He provides LOTS of data and references.

Al Gore's book turns out to be mostly a picture book. Almost no data provided. I am disgusted. (I could not look inside it on Amazon UK). Anyway I'll get back to that one as well.

 

[GregLocock]

Estimate is that for Oz to reduce CO2 emissions by 30%, by 2030, will cost $75billion.

That's about $3billion per year, or, given that around 5 million people actually pay net tax, an additional $600 per effective tax payer, per year. The others pay tax but get back more than that.

So, yes, that looks like a substantial cost to me.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[epoisses]

Don't worry Greg you did not sign the protocol anyway!
Honestly though I think 600$/year is quite reasonable for a monumental achievement of 30% reduction. I wonder how they did the calc.

 

[2dye4]

The cost of carbon redunctions.
Have you figured the cost of using carbon at the levels we do today??
Allmost certainly the troubles in the middle east would not require our involvement if not for securing fuel supplies. Think about the huge money spent on maintaining and increasing our capacity to consume energy.

No I think it is obvious that a program that forced a reduction in usage of carbon fuel would eventually be a huge boon to our economy as we learned to be just as comfortable with less. Less polution,war,politics,construction.

 

[jmw]

There ain't no such animal as "less". There are, however, alternatives though usually none are better and many are worse.
Most especially that applies to war and politics (and taxes).
But I like the sentiment.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[GregLocock]

Oh, I should add that is capital cost. It will also double the cost of electricity, which will also increase the cost of other goods.

yeah, we didn't sign Kyoto. Our success at reducing emissions is identical with that of most signatories.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[dcasto]

Just announced today in the US, a consortium of power generators are going to restart their projects to build nuke plants, GO TEAM.