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?

 

[johnwm]

Let's keep some semblance of engineering relevance in the discussion. The political and economic argument will always be colored by the vested interests of those in power!

The main issue for engineers in the US is that they will slip even further behind the rest of the world in developments in energy efficient systems.

[aside] I was watching a military parade the other day, and was amused to hear a proud father shout out 'Hey look everyone - my son is the only one in step!'[/aside]

Good Luck
johnwm
________________________________________________________
To get the best from these forums read faq731-376 before posting

UK steam enthusiasts:

http://www.essexsteam.co.uk

 

[25362]

To BobPE

Are you denying there is a direct relation between CFCs and stratospheric ozone depletion?

 

[BobPE]

25632:

What I am saying is that the potential for damage caused by CFC has been drastically overstated. The data used as the frame work for the rule banning CFC's eliminated the top 2 contributors to stratospheric chlorine in the statistical analysis of CFC's. When these top two contributors are added back into the equation, CFC are several orders of magnitude away from the top sources of chlorine that is available to react. But of course, the top two sources are caused naturally, so an assumption was made by scientists that although these two sources were the primary reason chlorine is available to react, it didn't fit their pre determined conclusion and they wre omitted, and I might add these scientists, at least in early reports, stated this assumption (good science, poor assumption, but not junk science). It was not until the rule was generally presented to the public that this assumption was ommited (the scientsts involved at this point were junk scientists).

Yes, chlorine contributes to stratoshperic ozone depletion, but CFC's do not significantly contribute to statospheric ozone depletion when all the data is analyzed. I am not denying the CFC link, the data is.

I believe that was one of the biggest environmental scams undertaken to date. now that is a tough opinion to have since that is not the main stream opinion, that is the fun part about being and engineer, we know to look for the data, determine its accuracy, and can understand what it is telling us. What we do with that knowledge is what concerns me.

BobPE

 

[25362]

BobPE, thanks.

It is interesting to note, for me at least, that most regulations on air pollution aren't all-embracing.

For example, people spend about 70% of their time inside buildings, for work or leisure, and especially at home.
Air pollution norms do not refer to closed places such as those.

It has been shown, that in a regular house kitchen where petroleum-derived gases are being burnt, the concentration of NOx is 3 to 4 times that found on regular surroundings ! Pollution-fighters have nothing to say about that ?

 

[corus]

I've still not seen any evidence from Bob that Bedouin's in the Sahara desert are suffering because they can't find a refridgerator. Oh well.

corus

 

[BobPE]

corus:

LOL...everyone knows that the Bedouins are a nomadic peoples. Their need for refridgeration centers on communities that they reach out to. Most of these communities have organizations that can afford upgraded refridgeration.

My friend just came back from Africa where they visited several remote communities being assisted by the PeaceCorps. Refridgerant there is a black market item that consists primarily of recycled CFC mainly the USA. Often times, more money is spent of CFC than for medicines storred in the fridge. These are only a few remote locations, but when you consider that most of the population of the world lives in similar remote locations, the need becomes evident. Mechanical equipment has migrated to these areas over many years. The drastic stopping of CFC production impacts these people as new mechanical equipment will take years to filter its way to these people to replace what we have regulated out of existance (it is tough for most of them to call Sears to order a new compliant fridge). So, I can imagine, a population that has grown accostomed to medications that need refridgeration will just have to grin and bare it till some new do gooders replace their equipment. My opinion is no and it is a travesty that the misinterpretation of science is harming these people.

You don't read about this in main stream press, which is probably why you are busting on me (i dont mind BTW).

BobPE

 

[MadMango]

Individual States in the US will lead pollution efforts, without federal action, like Kyoto. California drives the automotive industry, and in-turn federal regulations are inacted. I suspect that Northeastern States like Maine (and others) will drive air quality efforts, and this will force federal regulations.

[green]"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."[/green]
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[SnTMan]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/021605A.html

 

[samv]

In response:

Yes I do think that Canada seriously needs to review the way it is managing its forests.

I am not here to criticize the US position, simply to better understand the reasons behind it and to understand what Americans intends to do while we tackle the Kyoto goals.

I am surprised that this thread has not had more input from countries involved in Kyoto.

bye, it's been interesting.

 

[QCE]

As predicted we cannot have a reasonable conversation on this topic!

My question was looking for answers towards questions such as:

1. Denmark and Germany have pulled way ahead of the US in wind power technology because there government is supporting green energy industry. Other "Kyoto" countries are going to be focusing on green power. Will the USA miss the boat on this type of technology because they don't support "Kyoto"?

I'm not saying Kyoto is good or bad but it is a fact. It does not matter if countries that have joined make the quota or not. We are talking about technology development and spending on this technology development.

Someone mentioned that the US is leading the way in emission reducing technology. I don't see this. I see the US sitting they’re saying we are right for not joining Kyoto and you are wrong. All the while green power companies all over the world are developing away. Countries like Denmark may actually benefit from Kyoto because they are making so much money from wind power development. So much for the huge cost of implementing Kyoto.

Yes the left is fear mongering that the world will be destroyed but the right is also fear mongering that your economy will go bust if you reduce emissions. If a country chooses to be a world leader in reducing emissions I think there economy will be just fine.

I don't think Canada or the US has chosen this road.

 

[QCE]

OK back to the political nonscientific random arguing:

"EU15 greenhouse gas emissions decline after two years of increases." The news release explained that in 2002 the EU15's emissions were 0.5 percent lower than the year before.

If it is true the European economy must be in a mess compared to the US economy!

It is the US opinion that - "The Kyoto Treaty will cause the signatures major economic problems."

Any comment Bob? I only select Bob because he has been so good at replying to these types of challenges and he seems to holding up his argument pretty well.

Bob I would like to point out that for years Americain were convinced that DDT and smoking was not bad for you. In particular the majority of Americains believed that DDT being bad was "junk science". Is there a chance that global warming is "junk science" that is partially correct? It is just so weird to here someone be so confident in knowing the answer when noone knows the answer.

Also an open question:

If global warming is a hoax - would it not still be good to reduce emissions?

I think that most will agree that emissions are not good. I don't think that Canada will be as successful in reducing its emissions but at least they will give it a go. It may be econmic bust it might be economic success. However I don't agree that like many think "It WILL be economic bust!"

 

[sms]

What do you mean when you say "Denmark and Germany have pulled way ahead of the US in wind power technology"? Do you think these countries won't share that technology with US utilities (for a price)? Or are you saying the US doesn't have any wind power?

Funny, I wonder what all those thousands of towers with propellers are doing out there in the desert between San Antonio and El Paso Texas if they aren't generating power. Especially when they belong to a company called Green Mountain Power.

Also kind of funny, last time I was in Holland, the Dutch were talking about removing wind turbines. Seems they kill birds, make noise, and pollute the view.

 

[MadMango]

The EU15 decrease of emmisions by 0.5% in 2002 was caused by warmer outdoor temperatures and lower economic activity, not by any technological efforts.

EEA Report

[green]"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."[/green]
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[QCE]

OK the time many have come when people will try to answer my original question:

Other countries will be spending more on technologies to reduce emissions because of Kyoto (don't focus on the Kyoto part). Do you think the US will also start to spend more on these technologies?

I personnelly think that they won't. Next question:

Do you think that if the US does not start spending more on these technologies that they will fall behind in these technologies?

Next question:

Do you think it matters if the US falls behind in these technologies?

 

[QCE]

Interesting - we may have a break through - if global warming happens it will reduce emissions because people won't need as much fuel for heat.

 

[QCE]

Well then how did the Europeans do it? How did they reduce emissions and not have the economy fall apart?

I've been hearing for years that reduced emissions and economic success is just impossible! IMPOSSIBLE!!!

 

[BobPE]

QCE:

I appreciate the peer to peer sparring, it is great that we get to talk about things like this.

you asked:

Bob I would like to point out that for years Americain were convinced that DDT and smoking was not bad for you. In particular the majority of Americains believed that DDT being bad was "junk science". Is there a chance that global warming is "junk science" that is partially correct? It is just so weird to here someone be so confident in knowing the answer when noone knows the answer.


I am not confident I know the answer to much, and certainly not what we are talking about. I am confident that I understand the data, and it is the data that tell all who understand, what the truth is.

Is the mean global temp rising? Yes. Can we determine what this trend means? No. You have to remember, the mean global temp was falling in the 1970's and we engineers were devising ways to tap undersea methy hydrate deposits tin order to relaease methane into the atmosphere to inchrease the green house effect. Do we know more now that then? No. Global cooling discussions were just as silly as global warming discussions. These discussions make it to the frot line media and laypeople interprete them to suit their needs at the time, thus Kyoto.

I would argue the DDT issue, I believe that a lot of people are now dead and people will continue to die without the use of DDT. It is still used in parts of the world becuase of its ability to save lives. If used properly, it was a wonderful chemical. I think if we focused our efforts on its proper use, the world today would have even a better place for a lot more people.

Smoking, well....I won't argue that one...again, the data paint the true story, in my opinion.

You also asked:

If it is true the European economy must be in a mess compared to the US economy!

It is the US opinion that - "The Kyoto Treaty will cause the signatures major economic problems."


For the first part, I give you the EU.

For the second part, I don't believe the US was initially driven by economic concerns. The government asked our scientists to look at the data and render an opinion on Kyoto. Our government listened to the scientists that looked at all the data and not to those scientists that looked at the corrupt data set. I think it was a good decision.


I live in the middle of no where, an I have a wind farm right down the street. What am I missing with GE's pioneering wind turbine technology? Have the Germans invented a way to make the wind blow more steadily?

BobPE

 

[sms]

QCE, I don't see the problem. We buy German machinery, Japanese cars, fruit from Peru, oil from the middle east. Why wouldn't we buy wind turbines from Denmark or Germany if they have the technology, and why do you think it would be cheaper for the US to develop it't own windmill technology?

BTW, a large part of the fuel cell technology being developed today is being done here in the US, there must be some incentive for that.

 

[MadMango]

"Other countries will be spending more on technologies to reduce emissions because of Kyoto (don't focus on the Kyoto part). Do you think the US will also start to spend more on these technologies?"

Yes, but not through govermental mandate. If there is an ecomonic gain (profit) to be had, the private sector will investigate and develope new "green" technologies without govermental directive in the US.

"Do you think that if the US does not start spending more on these technologies that they will fall behind in these technologies?"

Yes, 'IF' they do not start spending money. But I think that by having Kyoto force the EU15 to meet standards, who's to say that a US company won't develope new technologies and export them to the Kyoto members? This ties into my answer to #1 above.

"Do you think it matters if the US falls behind in these technologies?"

Yes.


[green]"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."[/green]
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[BJC]

A google search on Kyoto and junk science fails to turn up much in the way of real science. Most of the websites are sponsered by right wing "think tanks" or derivatives their of. Reading most of this thread is like listing to Rush Limbaugh or one of his wannabes.
It's not about science, it's about money. It's about people who are paniced becasue someone thinks their going to have lower their life style degraded because some guy in Africa get a fridge to keep his beer in.
The real science, here and around the world is in direct oppositon with the "science" being cited in oposition to Kyoto. If it's junk science it ain't near as bad as "political" science.
While Americans are moaning and groaning somewhere someone is designing photvoltaic roofing that will power a thermoelectric refridgerator. That's just one opportunity. There was a time when we would be leading the way with products and technology and capture the markets that go with them. It's an opportunity to act, unfortunatly were just using it to cry in our beer.