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?

 

[DrillerNic]

zdas- I guess all those bullet holes in solar panels is a side effect of all those additional rights that lots of people seem to believe citizens of the US enjoy over the rights of people in various European countries (for example Buzzp "I see the rights of Europeans compared to those in the US & I like it better here" upthread)!!!!

 

[TrevorP]

I must admit that when it comes to global warming, I sit somewhat on the fence, though have been leaning more towards it being true over the last few years.
However, I find it astonishing that a country that has less than 5% of the world population, yet produces nearly one quarter of the world's CO2 emissions, considers it economically unviable to reduce them any, and even refuses to undertake not to increase them. The rest of the world looks to the US to take a lead in these, as in many other matters, and reducing usage of non-renewable fuels makes sense regardless of whether it leads to global warming or not. Whenever I have visited the US, which has been my priveledge on several occasions, I regular see what appears to be huge waste of energy resource. Not so much in industry, which (on the plants I have seen at any rate) are no better or worse than anywhere else in the world, but in people's daily lives. It is the lack of political will (in both political parties) to attempt to educate the public in energy reduction, that I find quite astonishing.

 

[25362]

For some discussions on global warming visit thread730-98121.

 

[buzzp]

Driller, I reread my post and the bottom of it did come across as being a bit harsh. My apologies. I was merely trying to point out that while I like some of the European norms this is not what I choose for the US. At the same time I don't like the US exactly as it is now.

 

[DrillerNic]

No problem Buzzp! I couldn't be bothered to put a smiley face on my post....

When I lived & worked in the US, I was often amused by the perception of what it's like in Europe (and the very idea that 'Europe' is a single country!)...for example, compared to the UK arguably the only additional right in the USA is the right to own military style semi- automatic wepaons!

But the misconceptions go the other way too- a common sneer is the low percentage of Americans who have passports; well imagine if a passport wasn't needed to travel within Europe (not just the EU)..... the number of Brits with passports would drop drastically too, if a passport wasn't needed to go skiing in Swizerland or drinking in Ibiza!

 

[Rich2001]

Is anything like the FutureGen project happening outside the US?

Ten-year demonstration project (FutureGen) to create the world's first coal-based, zero-emissions electricity and hydrogen power plant

http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/

2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-1-1.pdf

 

[sms]

I attended a presentation by Sam Jones of ERCOT (the electric reliability council of Texas). Commenting on wind energy in Texas he said there is 2100 MW of wind generation in place in Texas, that 1300 MW of wind generation was installed in the last 4 years (mostly in west Texas), and that they are planning for 3000 to 5000 MW of additional wind generation by 2009. That is just Texas, there is plenty of activity in other places as well.

So once again QCE what evidence do you have that the US is falling behind in energy technology?

 

[zdas04]

2dye4,
Do you have any links or references for this additional information? As you can see above, "studies" published in the popular media don't seem to carry much weight with this group. The "fact" that a "new" study exists supporting some facet of the Koyoto conference that is reported in Newsweek doesn't really add much to the discussion because few people here believe the popular press very much.

There are several links posted above that purport to be something that they really don't seem to be (at least no one has followed up with a link to a peer-reviewed publication). Whether Global Warming is: (1) a real, long-term trend; (2) caused by man; and/or (3) a danger to the planet are all contentions that many of us following this thread continue to be unwilling to accept on the evidence thus far presented.

I don't know who might be involved in a conspiricy, but short-sighted environmentalists and greedy scientists are as good a straw dog as any. I'd add self-serving media orginizations to the list. I'll never forget the scene early in the movie Armagedon where Greenpeace is in a boat which burns a couple of hundred gallons of diesel per hour picketing an offshore oil drilling rig--looks like short-sighted environmentalism to me.

David

 

[Roadbridge]

This is just my own observation on the global warming debate.
When I was a child all the farmers around me used to cut and store hay for the winter as feed for their cattle.

Over the years the summers have become very wet to a point where the farmers have been forced to abandon hay making and switch to silage.

Now even the silage harvesting falls behind time because the fields are to wet to drive on.

If I've seen this change in only twenty years, what is it going to be like in the next twenty?

It seems that too many people just want to bury their heads in the sand when this subject is raised

 

[zdas04]

Roadbridge,
Man, I hear the "bury their heads in the sand" slam often in this thread. I don't think that anyone participating in this forum actually falls into that category.

If I say "the 'science' behind this debate is flawed, and has been rife with outright fraud" I say it because that is what my review of the literature points to. If you disagree, I could say you have your head in the sand, but I won't.

If I say that the last ice age ended toward the end of the 1800's and that the record in the glacial ice suggests that there are several cycles documented where an ice age ends, the earth heats up steadily for many years to a peak, then cools until the next ice age begins.

The last time this happened it was called "The Renaissance" because the global warming had reduced the effort required to feed the population and enabled more effort to be applied to creativity and scholorship. In the period leading up to the Renaissance the population of mankind on the earth was very small compared to today, and the amount of carbon burned per capita was insignificant. The earth stil warmed and agricultural techniques evolved.

The climate does change. The glacial record is very clear on that. Where the discussion gets very murky is determining the impact of man on that change. The argument has been made several times above that the methane released from biological processes (termite mounds and cow farts are big sources mentioned) is a huge quantity that could dwarf the impact of man-made sources. Frozen vegtable matter in Alaska will eventually thaw (with or without our contribution) and release more CO2 than the average volcano. Oh yeah, volcanos are huge sources of "greenhouse gases" that will happen with or without our burning carbon products.

The changes in crop choices over 20 years are interesting, but the fact that these selections have changed does not necessarily prove that mankind burning carbon products was a contributor to the climate change that has been observed.

The Koyoto discussion is very much an arrogant assumption on the part of mankind that our trivial activities are the only possible cause of global change. There are local impacts that clearly seem to be man-made (but I wouln't be surprised if the occasional temperature inversion in the Los Angeles basin caused dinosaurs to cough and have their eyes water), but the proof that these effects are even regional is very tenous.

As my previous signature said "the plural of anecdote is not data". Observations and anecdotes are important indicators that something is hapening, they are not indicators of the root cause of those events. Personnaly, I'll keep my head in the sand of scientifically verifiable, reproducable facts and data. Pulling it out into the slime of the popular media is just too ugly.

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

 

[JAE]

David: I'd add that there are many....MANY....conflicts of interest and selfish use of science out there that try to prey on human fears of nasty Hollywoodish nightmares that just don't ever pan out and are not ...I repeat...NOT backed up by science, scientific inquiry, or honest debate.

Take this global warming scam for instance. Dr. Mann (the guy who put forward the "hockey stick" chart that showed a long slow progression of cooling over the past centuries and then an abrupt upturn in the last 100 years) would never fully reveal his analysis or methods for study. In fact, messages passed around the eco-groups include all sorts of candid discussions about "getting rid" of data that don't back up their warnings or predictions.

The hockey stick is dead and one should always remember that ecology-minded groups rely on continual crises to keep the funding coming. And one big deep pocket that just wouldn't go along with the Kyoto treaty was the US (thankfully).

 

[davefitz]

Back to the original question: Kyoto is currently causing the the US problems in 2 areas. First, most electric utilities will not invest in new coal fired generation plants until there is some certainty in how the CO2 will be taxed , and this postponing of investmnet decisions will negatively impact the ability to meet future demand for electricity in the US. Secondly, there is some level of minor political fallout in dealings with overseas coungtries that have accepted Kyoto.

There have been benefits derived from the European and Japanese decision to accept Kyoto. That decision has added impetus to improve technologies that increase the efficiency of power plants , and in building systems ( lighting, hvac) that reduce energy consumption. Their decsion to penalize oil consumption ( by import fuel taxes etc) has also led to developing a transportation sector that is slightly less sensitve to sudden and permanent increases in the cost of oil, compared to the US.

As H Termuehlen has stated in his books on modern power plants, the US could reduce its CO2 emisson from coal fired power plants by over 30% by replacing nearly all existing units with modern, high efficiency units,but it is not likely that level of investment will be forthcoming.

 

[JAE]

Just another example of science being held captive to political forces:

Global Warming

 

[BobPE]

JAE:

Thanks for the web site. It is hard for people to understand data and what it tells us and conversely, it is a lot easier just to manipulate it to tell a story of yours or others liking.

It is very dangerous when scientific research in censored and we should all be concerned as engineers. The referenced publications are more and more falling out of main stream scientific significance and are being relaged as mouth pieces for non scientists and persons with agendas. They should carry warning lables: "Use with caution, material may be non-scientific!" LOL

Bob

 

[corus]

A study by the Guardian newspaper of the UK shows how bad scientists are citing each other with dubious statistics, and in one case 'a glitch of the electronics' when pressing the 5 key instead of the % key. The result is that these numbers are now quoted by global climate deniers world wide.

To read how Hnery Kissinger is a communist, how the royal family in the UK can get you cut-price heroin, and how global warming isn't happening, then visit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1480279,00.html

corus

 

[zdas04]

I just came across the transcript of a speech by Michael Crichton at

http://www.perc.org/publications/articles/Crichtonspeech.php

. The speech contains the foundation for his novel State of Fear mentioned above. The man definately has a way with words.

PERC is an environmental-research organization whose basic tenets are:
- Private property rights encourage stewardship of resources.
- Government subsidies often degrade the environment.
- Market incentives spur individuals to conserve resources and protect environmental quality.
- Polluters should be liable for the harm they cause others.

David

 

[moltenmetal]

PERC's basic tenets have a few major flaws:

- private property rights encourage stewardship of resources ONLY IF a proper regulatory system exists to ensure this. Without regulation, an exhausted gravel pit becomes a natural toxic waste landfill from the point of view of a landowner: the land is useless for much else, and accepting toxic waste maximizes the owner's private gain from this otherwise worthless land. That's not "stewardship", that's a time bomb left for future generations to diffuse!

- government subsidies may well degrade the environment, but narrowly-defined economic cost/benefit analysis which assigns zero value to an ecosystem and equates human health with lawsuit costs does MORE harm than any government subsidy program I'm aware of. Businesses are algorithms for the maximization of profit, and cannot be counted on to do good out of conscience, so society needs a means to enter their economic equation and ensure that society's values are represented properly in the calculation of the "bottom line". Government is the voice of democratic society, and its role in both taxation AND subsidy is totally legitimate and necessary.

- market incentives spur individuals to conserve resources and protect environmental quality: yep, I buy that one, but only if all factors in the economic analysis have values associated with them. And clearly, government has a role in adjusting these values by means of taxation to ensure that all costs and impacts of economic activity are borne by those who consume the resources rather than by future generations or the public purse.

- polluters should be liable for the harm they cause others: wow, what a wonderful motherhood statement. But I bet these guys set the standard for the "proof of harm" so high that nobody would be liable for anything! And again, it becomes a major issue of values and definitions. Like who is the polluter- the consumer of the goods or the producer of the goods? And how do you assess the monetary value of human life, for instance? Or animal life? Or the balance of an ecosystem? Or genetic diversity? Or the extinction of species?

That said, I do agree with Crichton that environmentalism as practiced by certain nongovernmental organizations and famous individuals out there is a religion, plain and simple. It's full of absolutes (one of which is that human technology is somehow inherently suspect and evil), and takes little or no account of the fact that humans have a right to exist on the planet and use its resources. I have no patience for people who bring religion, whatever its nature, into public policy discourse.

 

[QCE]

If I was a writer like Mr. Crichton - I could also show how being a redneck is also a religion.

Full of absolutes (one of which is that human technology is somehow hard to figure out), and that they think that humans have a right to use all of the worlds resources.

 

[JAE]

So, QCE, that means that we absolutely don't have the right to use all the world's resources?

 

[QCE]

#100

It probably wouldn't be a good idea if that is what you mean.

Well I started this thread to talk about alternative energy but made the mistake of putting the word "Kyoto" in the title.

I'm glad I don't live in Kyoto. Think of all the bad press.

People get so worked up trying to prove there point on global warming that it is perfect for these kind of threads. People can argue in circles for years on this stuff. The fact is that we don't currently know what is going on.

The Kyoto accord was basically a political tool for governments to bring in emission reducing goals.

I personnelly belief that reducing emissions is good.

Therefore I'm proKyoto. That doesn't mean I believe that global warming is occuring.

It really has nothing to do with global warming. Governments need reasons to do things these days. The reason for reducing emssions is simple to say global warming. People buy it and the government gets reelected.

It is like someone said earlier:

"It is not science it is politics."

I'm not saying that politics is a good thing just that it is something.