Will Kyoto cause the US problems? 29

[QCE]

Please read the following article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4254877.stm

Any comments?

Will the Kyoto accord coming into effect cause the US to change its position on emissions?

I realize that many people don't believe that the US is a major polluter and that the 3rd world is doing all the polluting. Please refrain from dragging that arguement into this thread. The main issue is that other countries are going to be buy/selling/devloping new technologies to reduce emissions. Will the US be majorly involved?

 

[QCE]

So tell me why we can't do 30 Kyoto's?

Do you think if the first Kyoto is successful we would just stop and wait to see what will happen?

I always hear from groups - Kyoto will not work - we need a better plan. Well why doesn't the US or any other group that opposes Kyoto suggest a better plan. Let me guess it is in the works. Well while the US works on the "plan" that will be better some other countries have gone ahead and started to implement something. I hope the US will try and catch up.

Back to Bob:

Do you really think that the government can't direct the development of new technology? I agree that the private sector would do a better job once it is developed.

Wind technology has greatly improved since those fields full of 1000's of 250kW wind mills went into the states.

Noise and bird fatalities are no longer major issues with the new technology. The eye sore will be an issue. I perfer a field of wind turbines to a coal fired power station.

250kW to 4.5MW - now that is progress!

Are you talking about Enron Wind - GE Wind?

Do you think California is silly to try and reduce emissions?
Do you think California's economy will be hurt by the reductions?

 

[HgTX]

Okay, y'all lost me.

Which claims are right-wing junk, which claims are left-wing junk, and which are scientifically motivated?

Hg

 

[GregLocock]

1 Science: the average annual temperature of the Earth's surface varies

2 Unproven hypothesis: it is increasing rather more rapidly than usual, over the last century or so.

3 Unproven hypothesis: increasing average global temperatures is a bad thing.

4 Unproven hypothesis: mankind's contribution is significant

5 Unproven hypothesis: feasible reductions in mankind's contributions will make an improvement, or at least slow the rate of increase, if it is increasing.

I don't think anyone argues with (1)

(2) is somewhat controversial, partly due to the 'hockeystick' controversy, and more generally lack of good evidence.

(3) is taken as read by many. That doesn't mean it is right.

(4) is somewhat controversial as many models ignore (or downplay) the rather large contribution from the variations in solar output. There is also some evidence that burning coal tends to increase the albedo of the Earth, reducing its temperature by reflecting more solar heat. There are estimates indicating that burning coal is actually reducing the net temperature.

(5) The pro Kyotoists say a small step in the right direction is worth taking. The others usually argue that the tiny positive effect is not worth the investment.






Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[SnTMan]

Well, like EVERYTHING, it's all a matter of "what does it cost?" and "who pays?"

 

[flamby]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4267245.stm

Even those who have signed, have no clue what lies ahead and how to go about it. India and China, the large populations living on coal are practically exempt from the targets. Have they signed just as a token? Everyone seems to be sure, at least in India, that what they want more is some development now than a cooler environment 100 years down the line. Are the people sure in developed countries that they are willing to pay the price, the fruits of which may never come in their lifetime? And when such consent was taken? Or the governments are misleading the public?

This make one wonder whether the huge gala is for something real or just rhetoric.

Ciao.

 

[BJC]

A point I would like to re-empahsize about all this is that is is political and there are not many engineering desisions to be made about it.
The decisions about Kyoto and green house gasses etc. is going to be made by politicans and PHD types. The politicans are about money, the scientist have honest disagreements. We as engineers are maby a little more cognizant of what there talking about but not really involve other than in November (in the US that is).
I still think you gotta stop looking at it as a problem and look at it as an opportunity.
I recently did some work on a plant to process cow manure into ammonium nitrate. PArt of the reson was just to get rid of the gas, the other to get rid of the methane.
Whether you like it or not it's comming. We ( I talking to US engineers now) can build the processes and equipment to get it done, or let the _________ ( insert French, Indians, Russians Or whatever in the blanl).

 

[DrillerNic]

The UK has reduced greenhouse gas emissions over teh last 10- 15 years and in the last 10 years has also seen continuous growth (the UK didn't take part in the last 'global' recession following the dot com boom that the USA is just coming out of).

It was mainly achieved by moving from coal fired electricity stations to CCGT gas fired power stations, and was pretty painless for everyone except coal miners.

So meeting Kyoto doesn't necessarily result in economic penalties...

 

[corus]

In response to flamby,
India, China, Brazil, Australia, the USA, and Lichtenstein, have not signed up to the Kyoto agrement.

Even though the USA has not signed up to Kyoto at this moment they are looking to 2012 to sign up to a Kyoto part 2 agreement, and are making steps at this time to reduce carbon emmissions with an unlikley alliance between green's and neo-cons, as they are called in the US (refer to the BBC and Channel 4 news in the UK). Including the 141 countries that have signed up to Koyoto Part 1, it seems that not every country thinks that global warming is junk science.

corus

 

[sms]

BJC is exactly right, Kyoto has little to do with global warming. It is a political treaty, and as such is more about pride and politics than science. I believe there is as much junk economics associated with this debate as there is junk science. I would also argue that in our global economy that if there is a demand for emissions reduction technology in any country in the world, then there will be businesses, even some US businesses, that will fill that demand for technology. So QCE to answer your original question, of course the US will be involved in the development of new emission reduction technology, as long as there is a market for it anywhere in the world, we will be involved in providing it.

QCE, I really don't understand your position at all. What are you trying to get at? Your arguments are all over the place. I get the feeling that your assumption is that no advancement in emissions reduction technology can happen without government investment, and that it is a problem if the US government does not invest. If so, your assumptions are flawed and underestimate the power of the free market (IMHO). How would you answer your original question?

At least Greg Locock (as usual) has done a nice summary of the situation. Thanks Greg!

 

[BobPE]

30 Kyotos??? yikes...Something like that would have little or no chance of the real science seeing the light of day...

30 Kyotos would change life on the planet as we know it. Is that good or bad, I do not know, I have not seen the data to support something like that. I would think with something like that, we would have regulated breathing days where we would use CO2 strippers to regulate load. The cows that were discussed earlier...that would become a hugh problem, no need for them, the exponential growth of population to 2100 wont have use for them. I would see the engineering potential as I would love to be on the project team that designes the treatment systems for the various active volcanoes in the world. It seems like that is where we would have to focus a lot of effort with 30 Kyotos. Maybe so much so, that mans contributions would pale in comparison?????????? HMMMM what a thought....maybe we will have to factor out natural sources from the data AGAIN, to allow focus on the insignificant????

I was a part of the EPA review panel for the revisions to the Clean Air Act here in the US. I devoted a lot of time to the subject and one issue still sticks with me to this day. All the PhD's who were intpreting the data focused narrowly on one topic for days. It was a tremendous concern for them because their models predicted tremendous particulate loading that was going to lower the quality of life for millions around the world. They presented models, data, health statistics, then called the subject a "red herring" issue...Their solution, written into the 3rd or 4th draft of the ACT.....Use of outdoor gas and charcoal grills would need to be alternated during summer peak usage periods. A comprehensive plan to establish an enforcement scheme was critical to subsequent drafts of the act. Now, this is not in the current ACT, and I like to think I helped in some little way and get a good laugh everytime I use my grill.

It was at this point that I became aware as a professional and thus my fervour for understanding data and applying common sense to ints subsequent use to protect people.

We talked about indoor air pollution earlier, I think that to be a worthy undertaking since it impacts people directly and in a time frame that allows engineering to solve the problem. I would propose Kyoto - INDOOR, if the real benefit is to be for people.


QCE:

I think Californians are already suffering from poor decisions based on junk science. The worlds 4th largest economy is an the brink of bankruptcy.


I love my wind farm, but in reality, the capacity cannot begin to replace the base load requirements of the US and it will continue to be a frindge politically correct source for those people that wish to pay higher rates for green power.. I prefer nuclear power to coal, but love coal too. Gas turbines, where are we going with that? They make great peaking facilities which I think help to regulate emmissions at coal plants....But the impact here in the US with natural gas futures impacts people at their wallet. People switch to heat sources like coal, wood and oil as they become more affordable. With little or no environmental control in the home, I wonder...

I think if more of us lowely, non PhD engineers got involved in making people write policy that works and demand that politics remain at arms length in intpreting data...that would be worthy of our talents.

BobPE

 

[CajunCenturion]

So much of this discussion, and rightly so, has focused on the actual data, what data to include, and how best to interpret that data.

Can anyone provide a link to the actual data where we can see the CO₂ impact, the chlorine impact, CFC impact, and other pertinent data? What are all of the greenhouse gases and how does the Treaty handle them. How are these data mapped into which climate models?

I agree with BobPE and the data does speak for itself. I think it would be helpful to this discussion if we could actually see the data.

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

 

[Rich2001]

When one discusses global warming or cooling generaly one assumes that the solar flux is constant which is far from the case. During Solar Cycle Number 13 that began March 1890 (100+ years ago) the monthly totaled flux at times was 36% less that the solar flux during the current solar cycle number 23.

Helios is the most significant player in the game.

 

[2dye4]

BobPE,QCE,Greglocock:

Would the world have a better future if we just dropped the
global warming concern and not give it another though??
Since the Earths history is so old and many temperature
variations have happened before SUV's maybe we should just
assume that any warming or cooling is due to circumstances
outside of our control and just go on with economic prosperity
as our only motivating factor.
I find it hard to imagine the level of this conspiracy that
we are witnessing. Just today the Financial Times of London
is on board with more propaganda about this Gloabal Warming.
Every day it on some news channel. I doubt if the
government or business could devise such an effective campaign

Excuse me for now I am off to buy A larger SUV.

 

[2dye4]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4c7db6de-81b7-11d9-9e19-00000e2511c8.html

These guys are really laying it on thick

 

[BobPE]

crazy, isn't it 2dye4??? I would be in favor of dropping the global warming issue, yes. I would focus the limited amount of funds and resources on things that really impact people to increase the quality of life for as many as possible. The underlying probelm is that very few understand the big picture. And it is very easy to misguide those that do not.

I was looking at Hummers, they are cleaner burning that most all of the cars on the road in China. The way I look at it is it will be that much sooner that fossile fuel reserves will be depleted, so in essence, you are doing a good thing for the environment by upping that SUV you have by burning as much fuel as possible through that environmental friendly motor, rather than leave the fule to be consumed by the smog belching cars in the developing world.........

Again, let the data guide you.....

BobPE

 

[zdas04]

This thread has moved so quickly that it is hard to contribute to comments as they're made. Fascinating discussion.

One point that has been brought up several times that concerns me is the assumption that a technology developed by a Koyoto signatory would not be available to a non-signatory and vice versa. If the German wind turbines advance the art, then the world will beat a path to their door to acquire the new art in places where the technology makes economic sense. If a U.S. "cow fart" technology is more than an interesting sideshow, then it will be employed in signatory countries.

The discussion of California is an interesting one. One of the California utilities had a contract to buy power from a coal-fired plant near my house. When a law went into place that limited the power the Calfornia utility could get from coal-fired plants, the contracts were reshuffled and the power from here went to Phoenix while the offset requirement from an "acceptable" source was diverted from Phoenix to California. The rate per kWh in California tripled for that chunk of power - for a zero net improvement in the air quality of the planet. That is a real economic impact.

David

 

[JAE]

$954,695,456

That's what the Kyoto protocol has cost the world in order to achieve the potential of saving us 0.000009899 °C in temperature increases. The cost is going up fast. That's according to the Kyoto Count-Up over at

http://www.JunkScience.com

 

[BobPE]

Love the site JAE....thanks....

BobPE

 

[BJC]

JAE
You post illustrates what I have been saying. Steve Milloy is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. IF you think the Cato Isntitute is an unbiased organization you need to do more research.
Here' a couple of links on Steve Milloy. He was among other things a lobbiest for the tobacco companies. IF he gets paid enough he could find junk engineer to cover whatever it is you do.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy

http://www.info-pollution.com/milloy.html

If your going to infromed you can't just read the bumper stickers. Given enough money you make anything look bad. If you don't have science on your side, hire engough spin doctors and go for press.

 

[samv]

BobPE the more you talk, the more you sound like you are against any form environmental action. I've concluded that you think we should simply live life large while we still can in the name of preventing human suffering (?!)- quite the opposite of the "middle ground" on which you say you are standing