US favours bucks over the environment?

Remove all ads!

In this thread on the PC Gamer forums, they are talking about how the EU's propositon of 15% of UN member's energy coming from a renewable energy source, has been scrapped thanks to America favouring money over anything else. I'm not going to comment on this because it's bound to be biased being a British site and all, but is this true?

 

15% of energy coming from renewable resources would be prohibitively costly. Considering that the science of global warming is murky at best (trust me; I contract for the U.S. Dept of Energy with scientists who've dedicated their lives to stopping global warming) I doubt America stands alone in opposition to this.

With the exception of large-scale hydroelectric power (which environmentalists oppose because it changes the landscape), there are no efficient methods of generating electricity from renewable resources.

 

Not only the environment but the lives of others and peace in the middle east as well. Just check this text

Understanding Oil
By Serj Tankian
9/13/2001

The brutal attacks/bombings this week in New York, and Washington D.C., along with threats of attacks there and elsewhere in the country have changed our times forever. While the mass media concentrates on the details of the destruction, and the blanketed words of politicians, I will attempt to understand and explain the events from the fence. BOMBING AND BEING BOMBED ARE THE SAME THINGS ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE FENCE.

Terror is not a spontaneous human action without credence. People just dont hijack planes and commit harikari (suicide) without any weight of thought to the action. No one in the media seems to ask WHY DID THESE PEOPLE DO THIS HORRIFIC ACT OF VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION?

To be able to understand the answer to this, we must first look at our U.S. Mideast Policy. During most of the 20th century, U.S. businesses have worked on attaining oil rights and concessions from countries in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. After WWI, secret back door deals by our State Dept. yielded oil rights from then defeated Turkey to fields in what is now Iraq and Saudi Arabia, in return for looking the other way at a crime against humanity, the Genocide of the Armenians by the Turks. Oil profits have been the motivating factors behind many attempts at counterinsurgency of democratic regimes by the CIA and the U.S in the Middle East (such as Iran in the 1950s, where the Shah replaced the Prime Minister who refused to give up oil rights to the U.S., and since the people couldnt deal with the Shah, an extremist government headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini ultimately prevailed). During the Iran-Iraq war, America supplied both sides with weapons and advice. These are not the actions of a rich superpower wanting peace. Lets not forget that Saddam Hussein, before being Americas vision of the Anti-Christ, was a close ally of the U.S., and the CIA. So what was the firm belief system of consecutive American administrations that caused all this to occur ? PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST WILL LEAD TO HIGHER OIL AND GASOLINE PRICES. Lets not also forget the power of the Arms industry, disguised as defense, that still sells billions of dollars of weapons to the area. Therefore it has not been in the short-term economic interest of the U.S. to foster Peace in the Middle East. Using the above reasoning, the U.S. has encouraged extremist governments, toppled democracies, as in the case of Iran to replace it with a monarchy, rigged elections, and many more unspeakable political crimes for U.S. businesses abroad. Lets not also forget the Red Scare. During the war between the then Soviet Union and Afghanistan, the U.S. armed and supported the Taliban, a fundamentalist Muslim organization, and allowed them to export opium and heroin out of their country to pay for those weapons. Therefore the Taliban rose to power and control with the help of the U.S.A. Today, the bombing of Iraq still continues, no longer covered by the media, the economic embargo still remains, killing millions of children, and recently, while the world and the U.N. General Assembly have cried out to bring in peacekeeping forces into Israel and Palestine, to end the escalated war and recent assassinations, the U.S. has vetoed the rest of the Security Council and has halted the possibility of peace, there, in the most volatile place in the world.

People in Serbia, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan to name a few have seen bombs fall, not always at military targets and kill innocent civilians, as the scene in New York city yesterday. The wars waged by our government in our names has landed smack in the middle of our living room. The half hour of destruction closed down all world financial markets, struck the central headquarters of our military, and had our leaders running into bunkers, and our citizens into fear and frenzy. What scares me more than what has occurred is what our reactions to the occurrences may cause. President Bush belongs to a long generation of Republican Presidents who love war economies. The media has only concentrated on the bombings, if you will, and what type of retaliations are looming for the perpetrators. What everyone fails to realize is that the bombings are a reaction to existing injustices around the world, generally unseen to most Americans. To react to a reaction would be to further sponsor the reaction. In other words, my belief is that the terror will multiply if concrete steps are not taken to sponsor peace in the middle east, NOW. This does not mean that we should not find the guilty party(s), Bin Laden, or whoever they may be, and not try them. Put simply, as long as a major injustice remains, violence precipitates to the surface of life.

Native American folklore, the Bible, Nostradamus, and many other major religious beliefs point to this era with the visuals of yesterdays disasters, and conditions of ecological disasters we experience daily in our lives today. War, rumors of war, famine, long burning fires, etc., are at our doorstep. We can prevail over this possible vision with the power of the human spirit, understanding, compassion, and peace. ITS TIME TO PUT OUR NEEDS FOR SECURITY AND SURVIVAL, ACHIEVED ONLY THROUGH PEACE, ABOVE AND BEYOND PROFITS, ESPECIALLY IN THESE TIMES.

SOLUTION:

The U.S. should stop sidestepping the U.N. Security Council, and allow U.N. Peacekeeping troops and missions to the Middle East. Stop the violence first.

Stop the bombing and patrol of Iraq.

With todays gains in the use of alternative fuels, develop them to full usage with autos and other utilities, to make the country less dependant on an already depleting natural reserve, oil.

By initiating peace, we would have already shaken the foundations of support for Bin Laden, and/or all those that sponsor activities like those we saw yesterday, and break the stronghold of extremists on the world of Islam. On the other hand, if we carry out bombings on Afghanistan or elsewhere to appease public demand, and very likely kill innocent civilians along the way, wed be creating many more martyrs going to their deaths in retaliation against the retaliation. As shown from yesterdays events, you cannot stop a person whos ready to die.

 

This was meant as a follow-on to Shralp's post, not the one just above this one.

Not to mention the costs associated with converting the existing infrastructures. For example, existing dams could be converted to hydro-electric plants, yet that involves immense construction renovation costs, utility right of ways that have to be purchased, etc.
Wind power is becoming more popular, yet they have a very low Mega Watt output.
Solar power has very limited applications, and is not feasible in many parts of the world (not enough hours of sunlight available).
In the Architectural & Engineering fields, we are turning to more "Green" designs, which make the facility energy efficient.

[ September 03, 2002, 21:35: Message edited by: Keraptisdm ]

 

Shralp (btw you are the epitome of the American stereotype over here...) -

I'm sorry, I do get angry when I hear people say stuff like that. Yes, it is expensive to develop the science, no arguement. The science behind global warming is not murky - it is stark.

The idea of using renewable tech. for power is not to provide cheap energy, it is to attempt to save the planet (dramatic, sorry...) The attempts being made now are the first step in the right direction, they should not be put second place to efficiency and cost. They should be backed by EVERYONE.

[ September 03, 2002, 23:13: Message edited by: Christopher_Lee ]

 

IIRC, Solar Power tends to be inefficient as well. To compare the costs involved to the MegaWatt output, it has a worse ratio than coal.

 

I'm for nuclear power. Clear cut, and dry.

But...

The only "renewable" source of energy that I've heard of that's not just pumping billions of tons of sulfur and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and is actually feasable as an energy source, is solar power.

I read about this 10+ years ago, I think. There were a couple of very small scale tests run, and then it just disappeared. Last I heard, it worked.

A group of physicsts and engineers had come up with a design for some MASSIVE solar panels. Something like the total surface area of Texas. These (not one big one, but several small ones) would be constructed in high geosynchronous orbit (something like 1000 miles). How you do that without the solar wind pushing them out of orbit, I know not. Anyways, they would be hooked up to superconducting capacitors, which were possible back then due to the extreme low temp. in space. Once a day, a low power targeting laser would pop a couple of shots down at the collector dish on earth to insure it was on target, then unload with a muti-gigawatt microwave beam. I can't remember the frequency; close to a teracycle, I think...925gigacycles? The whole transfer would take like an entire minute, which at a several gigawatts, is an intense amount of energy.

I think it charged up the capacitors at ground level, which are used to power the grid. They figured a collector size about that of Texas would power the entire world at current demand levels (probably 1989).

There were all kinds of safety issues brought up, like what if a meteroid hit the laser, what if it's off target, what if the lens is malformed. I think it was the oil companies that killed it before anything else.

That's about the only one that has ever come close. All the others are too far down the food chain to make enough energy.

 

I read recently that the second cheapest method of generating electricity is by wind turbine. Going for renewable energy, and saving energy, doesn't have to cost money, it often saves money. Personally I plan to switch to an electricity supplier using renewable energy just as soon as I get my things sorted out in my new house; I also want to improve my house's energy efficiency and watch the savings come rolling in.
Whether or not global warming is a fact (and far fewer scientists dispute this now than ten or twenty years ago), the amount of financial damage caused by natural, weather-based disasters, has skyrocketed over the past decade. If, as many people think, this increase is due to global warming, it would have cost less to act against global warming than the cost of these disasters. Unfortunately most of the disasters (though not all) happen in poorer countries, but the source of the problem is in rich countries.

 

Maldir: When you go to switch to an electricity supplier that advertises that it's a "renewable" source, ask them the following questions. "What is the capacity of their renewable source?" "What is their typical, total customer load?" "What is their renewable source?" "What source do they use if the demand exceeds the capacity of their renewable source?"
What you will typically discover, is that the utility's renewable source capacity is not large enough to handle the demand, so they will end up tying into a non-renewable source. And in the process, you'll pay more for their "renewable" source, yet still be getting power from a non-renewable source. Bottom line, do your homework and ask them questions.

 

Christopher_Lee: Let me repeat: I WORK IN THE FIELD.

Despite what you hear in your high school or in the media, the science behind global warming is still under debate.

Scientists do not agree whether the globe is truly warming (past measurements were taken over land and ignored the fact that there is an equalizing effect due to cloud cover over oceans). They do not agree whether warming would be caused by greenhouse gases (there are several arguments that say that we're just experiencing natural warming of the Earth as we cycle through ice ages). They do not agree whether there has even been a significant increase in greenhouse gases (the reliability of ice core samples, which has been used to argue that greenhouse gases are on the upswing, is under dispute). And even if there has been, they do not agree on whether or not humans are the cause of a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions (a medium volcano will put more GHG into the atmosphere than a whole year of human activity).

Call names if you must, but try to recognize when someone knows what he's talking about and is willing to share it with you. It's called "learning."

 

" medium volcano will put more GHG into the atmosphere than a whole year of human activity."

Dude.

A "medium sized volcano" will put more sulfur/nitrogen/carbon (in the form of oxides) into the UPPER (i.e. 30 kilometers up) than several years of "human activity". Like a syringe, it just injects it. None of this "release" stuff.

And stand-by on the big ones. Pinitubo?

 

Keraptisdm: I'm interested in Npower, an electricity company here; they're advertising Juice, which they claim uses only renewable energy. They want to get 50,000 subscribers and build an off-shore windfarm (planning consent has now been given for this off the coast of Wales); in the mean time they are using existing hydro power and onshore wind farms. They also say that there is no premium on this tariff in comparison with their other electricity tariffs. Obviously I'll want to make sure that until they build their new wind farm I'll get green energy, but it seems a good bet to me.

 

Maldir: Sounds like this outfit may be more on the up and up than some of the "Power Sellers" over here. We've caught some of those "Green Power Companies" in outright lies. Good job for doing your homework!!

 

Shralp -

Well, fine. To be perfectly honest, I'm not far off the fiedl myself either. Having just finished my research project working in a Evolutionary Ecology research centre, I have yet to have found any scientict who doesn't believe in all the things you've just mentioned. In fact, the one who springs to mind immediately gave I last heard lecturing that "it is happening"...

Good to hear Colin Powell got heckled at the Earth Summit

 

Heckling Powell serves what purpose?
Does it further dialog? Does it make the US more eager to comply?

 

Hmm...have to say that, to a degree, I agree with Shralp. Within the scientific community there is still much debate about the extent and cause of climatic warming. And as already stated, there is some question about whether there is a warming trend or not. However, the evidence indicating that (1) there is a warming trend and that (2) it is, at least in part, due to human activity, is growing. As for the extent of warming, that is one issue that keeps flipping back and forth; for every scientific study (i.e., those published by the scientists, not by the popular press) you read that states it is warming faster than anticipated, you will read one that indicates it is slower than anticipated.

The major reason for this is the sheer size and complexity of the subject - the climate of the entire planet. Even with all of the advances in science and computer technology, there are no instruments that can measure the entire phenomen. That in itself leads to an inherent unrealability in the measurements. Another reason is that not every component of climate is understood.

For example, consider the main 'tool' used in climate analysis: Global Climate Models (GCMs). Using extremely complex algorithms, a mathematical model is created for each known system within the larger climate system. This usually results in 3 larger models: atmosphere, ocean and surface (continental). Each of those models is, in turn, comprised of hundreds of other algorithms to simulate things like the carbon cycle, ocean currents, trade winds, rotation of the planet, water cycle, and countless others. Oh, by the way, these are the simple ones This model is then 'mapped' across a grid representing the earth and layered (meaning you can then have an ocean surface, mid-range ocean depth and deep ocean, as well as upper and lower atmospheres, alpine, continental, etc).

Then numerous measurements are taken in the field. These can take the form of ice core samples (for carbon and other soluble gasese), tree ring samples (similar), satellite and radar data (can include upper/lower atmospher and surface temperatures, gas levels at various altitudes, polar ice cover, etc) and historical meteorlogical data. A given GCM will use data from numerous different sources, although the bulk is from historical records and satellite data. All of this data is what's called 'point' data: it refers to a single place in time on a very small scale. Even with thousands upon thousands of 'points', it doesn't even come close to covering the earth. So additional information is extrapolated from existing data to obtain an information map of the globe (or the area being modelled).

Data is then input to the model for calibration. Basically, the model has to 'learn' how the climate works. Usually this means backcasting, or seeing if the model can predict the past climate. Backcasting on a good model should go back at least 50 to 100 year. The output for each year and region (again, depending on the scale of the model) is then measured against the actual historical data. If it's wrong, the model is re-calibrated. This process can take several years (although the more recent supercomputers have certainly decreased the amount of time). When the system reaches equilibrium (has been sufficiently calibrated), then they begin to run the analysis: increase carbon levels in the atmosphere, methane, etc. Again, this takes quite some time. If the results are clearly off the scale (which happens sometimes), calibration begins again, but usually it's just fine tuning.

The model then spews out a whole slew of data, mostly in the form of temperature and precipitation. These two variables are then used to produce a whole wack of additional information. It is then coupled with a Geogrpahic Information System (GIS) to produce the nice pretty maps, and (more importantly) to conduct the true analysis.

At any point in this process something can go wrong. When I used to work with GCMs and GISs for this type of analysis, I frequently had to reduce the 'resolution' of the data to avoid giving false impressions of accuracy. For example, the entire country of Canada would be represented as anywhere from 5 to 15 chunks within a given GCM. From that we would extrapolate further information to view all of Canada, but we had to be careful not to extrapolate too much or the data became useless. Even then, when we presented to the decion-makers (government ministers, deputy ministers, popular press, and yes other scientists) we had to really dumb down everything.

Now, there is a point to all of this rambling. From beginning to end, uncertainty is inherent in the process: the source data could be wrong or misinterpreted; the algorithms might be wrong; there are elements that are not understood and so are 'hard coded' into the model; the model might not have been calibrated properly; the analysis of the future state (predicted levels of CO2 for example) could be wrong. And then, once it gets down to the public level (government, private sector, general public) it gets watered down so as to be understandable.

I have sat in rooms and listened to hundreds of scientists, government officials, lobyists, environmentalists and industry 'experts' argue incessently over whether global warming is real, whether human beings are responsible, and if so how responsible, whether the science is 'foolproof', and on and on. I have listened to people who, while maybe respected in their own field of expertise, have no business speaking on the subject - they are typically misinformed, and generally not equipped to draw any real conclusions. And yet, it is not the scientists nor the government officials who truly *need* to understand: it's the public at large that needs to find out for themselves. An interesting conundrum.

So here's my advice. Regardless of whether or not global warming is actually occuring, there is no reason not to be prepared to deal with the ramifications of it. By this I mean that there is no reason to use inefficient sources of energy. And on a grand scale (ie, to power a large city) solar and wind are not the answer. However, they can be used to supplement a supply. A combination of sources (nuclear, hydro, etc) can be used to produce energy efficiently without causing undue stress on the natural system (key phrase: undue stress). Solid waste disposal (not PCBs and similar wastes, obviously), despite the bad press, is best carried out through incineration; current technology allows for 99.9% scrubbing of toxins which is far better than land fill. There are countless other things that can and should be done, regardless of global warming, simply because they are inefficient to begin with, not to mention the other known (and accepted) hazardous effects. We should stop wasting time and money through these massive 'global' meetings and agreements, and simply get down to business, focusing on what can and needs to be done.

And for anyone who took the time to read through all of that, thanks

(I'll tackle the volcanoe issue another time )

 

Thanks for that one Gnolyn, shows just how much I didn't know.

But as uneducated as I am, it seems to boil down to this: If we take measures right now to help our environment, strict laws for companies regarding pollution, recycling, the works, we will slow down development. Noone can disagree with that. It will be horribly expensive, and Bush, being brought to the White House by the Oil Industry (it's even in his own family), might not be too interested in, for example, alternative engines for cars.

And if the Greenhouse effect turns out to be fake, then we will have "wasted" a lot of money..

However, if we do nothing, and it turns out to be right... well.

So, if there is doubt about this issue, then I'd give the environmentalists the benefit of it.

 

You might be interested to know that it was reported recently in Time magazine that several automakers have been working on developing cars fueled by hydrogen-fuel cells. President Bush is proposing tax breaks as an incentive to speed development.

[ September 05, 2002, 07:37: Message edited by: Sojourner ]

 

Gnolyn - YES!

notwithstanding the fact that Shralp and I obviously wouldn't like each other were we to meet, spot on. It simply is not worth the risk to sit and do nothing, when if global warming etc is occuring, then the timescale to do something is short.

 

Well, I'll leave your relationship with Shralp to you...but as for taking action, yes and no.

Yes, certain things can and should be done regardless or the truth/mis-truth of global warming. But no, knee-jerk reactions, or acting simply out of fear of the unknown, and thereby putting undue stresses on the economy, should not be done. This may sound both ridiculous and hypocritical, but consider what that means before simply agreeing or objecting.

As I already stated, somethings can and should be done, such as simply making the energy supply infrastructure more efficient. This means making supply readily available to those areas that need it and at the same time ensuring that it is used wisely and conservatively. The often highly flounted 'alternative' renewable energy sources (namely solar and wind power, but also tidal power in some regions) simply cannot supply anywhere near the total demand for power, even with good conservation strategies. While they can be excellent and relatively inexpensive source on a small scale, as the scale or supply increases, the increase in cost is even greater, and these sources quickly become economically unfeasible. But that doesn't mean that they dont' have their uses - they just have to be applied appropriately. For example, the truly large demand for power (and water) supply is in the manufacturing industry. However, solar/wind/tidal could be used to supplement household power consumption. Even if you disregard the global warming argument, it still makes sense as, if applied correctly, it would reduce overall pollutants, reduce the cost of energy, and provide a more efficient and effective infrastructure.

By the same token, it does not make sense to even attempt to replace en masse the large-scale nuclear, hydro and even coal-burning plants with solar or similar sources. It would be economic suicide. Despite the knee-jerk reaction that these sources are 'bad', when managed properly they are a vital component and provide the backbone of the energy supply. But replacing and upgrading old plants with newer, more efficient technologies (such as cleaner scrubbers for fossil fuel plants) only makes sense anyway. And some of this is already being done.

I'll try and save you from the long extended diatribe but the whole Kyoto protocol is a joke, as are these massive 'conventions' that just keep wasting people's time and money. Even if you accept that global climate change is a reality, the targets given in the agreement don't actually do anything to address the problem. The 5% less than 1990 CO2 levels is a drop in the bucket, but beside that I can't think of any nation's economy that could, at this stage, handle reducing current emissions to that level in 10 years. It's a moot point. As is trying to 'police' all the countries involved.