Environmental Issues

[Kevin McCabe]

Worse yet, I see Food as the next Standard, with the already starving being wiped-out as the global economy switches to it.

I agree with your post, Kyrinn. This is just offered as a shred of hope. While it will likely be ignored (and already is), the possibility of developing bio-fuels without impact to food exists in at least three forms:

Marginal lands - quite of bit of land that is only marginally suited to cotton is currently exploited to that end. This normally results in deserts, but can also result in sterility from saline factors. A better approach would be grasses that are better suited to the nature of the soil and water table. These can be converted to biofuels.

Algae reactors - Coupled with a diversion of the gas (CO2) from coal plants, algae reactors can produce bio-fuels with no impact to food supplies. Properly developed, this technology might actually be able to handle the oil crisis on its own. A brilliant French Phd working in the area told me that its not truly green. That would require sequestering the biofuel, rather than using it, to get rid of the coal CO2. But, it does get you a second fuel cycle out of the carbon without impact to food.

Re-Thinking Protein - Noted British environmentalist Lester Brown has pointed out that soy beans, a potential source of food and biofuel, are actually more productive when fed to chickens which are then consumed by people (I'm actually not fond of chicken. I'm not the world's biggest carnivore, but when I'm up for it, I'm very fond of burgers or New York steaks. Sacrifices will have to be made)

Water impacts, of all bio-fuel technologies, is another matter. The algae reactors are probably the best bet, but would require a fairly massive investment in pipeline infrastructure to carry the coal gas to the coast.

[Vazkar Asquinol]

Interesting.

My personal opinion is that the theory of "Global Warming/Climate change" is a controversial at best.

This planet which we live in shall equate itself with or without our interference.

To remove carbon based fuel sources based upon "climate change" is wrong, wrong, and yet again wrong.

Now, I am all for sustanable, renewable fuel sources to engender our species with longevity. However, the proponents of alternative to carbon based fuel site the lack of renewable liquid lubricants as unavoidable.

I agree. However we can prolong the necessary use of these "liquid lubricants" by subsidizing them with renewable resources. Wind, water, solar, etc.

No one has stated that carbon based lubrcants will last forever. However, we have seen many that state that we cannot function without them.

Why is it then, that we cannot utilize the liquid lubricants as such to the time they are required to produce an alternative, whilst we utilize wind, solar, aquatic sources of fuel for the things that DO NOT require liquid lubrication?

No reason other than the greed of OPEC, U.S. oil companies, etc.

As it stands Bio-fuels would cause an economic dilemma based upon the fact that farmers would would grow corn for fuel as opposed to food.

We have already seen the effects of this agenda. Starvation in Egypt, most of Africa, South America, et al.

I am afraid that we as a planet of "like" individuals are cursed to survive based upon the whims of those in power. Those, whose wish is it is to stay in power, damned be the small man who dares to buck the system and to create a system of equality or those whose wish it is to create a system of self sustenance.

Those in power will do whatever necessary to remain in power. Those not in power will forever be relegated to the status of striving for control, or at the very least economic equality.

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

I'm afraid I have to agree with the Carbon Footprint argument being a terrible lie toward the end of global control.

The planet has gone through cycles of heating and cooling throughout history, including the last two hundred years when records of such things were kept in earnest.

Overlooking solar cycles in relation to the third planet in its system is non-science, and pro-policy. C02 is released by the oceans when solar radiations heat them up. This CO2 is then measured in relation to the increase in the warm-up, and bad politics coerces/lubricates the palms of bad scientists to cock the data.

The whole solar system went through a warm-up over the last 20 years, including mars, and we know they aren't driving Cadillacs.

Now, that isn't to say that I favour fossil fuels, because I don't. I grew up during the Oil Crisis of the 70's and fully expected the US to be one big desert; to drive a solar-assisted, human-powered vehicle, and to live underground, because that's the BS they were selling us then. After that Reagan somehow mysteriously solved the problem, and they had to cook-up another lie to feed us.

Bio-fuel-alternatives sound like a step in the right direction, but there are suppressed technologies, such as ion engines that use ordinary water to do most of the work, but the Big Money companies are doing their damndest to keep them out of the hands of the people, because they haven't mastered a $ plan to capilalise on it, yet $. Other examples can be found without much research.

I'm a huge fan of the environmental renewables (Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal), and am dumbfounded as to why we aren't collectively demanding that we switch over to these proven systems immediately.

The only reason I can see is that part of the politic of fear is that we need to still seem dependent upon a seeming exhaustible, or toxic method, as a form of social control.

In truth, even with the population in excess of 6 billion, we could feed everyone, even in a non-utopian system. The fact is, there's no money, no power in it, and those in power and money know that all too well.

As far as fixing it: As long as words are working, use them. As soon as the words stop working, I suggest the individual weigh in their own heart/mind what is and what is not worth fighting for.

To recap, Kyrinn-... Doesn't believe we are contributing enough to the warm-up to make radical Carbon politics the global method of governance. I don't like pollution and think we must be fastidious about our garden earth ('don't sh!t where you eat'). Use what we already know works, re: renewables. Don't screw with people's food supply or the genes of the food. The world must wake up and make the overlords vacate the premise, or face reprisals (and we don't want that except as a very dead-last alternative).

Respectfully,
-YT

[Kevin McCabe]

Sorry Kyrinn, I disagree. There are no glaciers left in Glacier Park. Many of the ones I took as challenges in my youth hereabouts are gone forever or so completely diminished as to be recognizable only in the winter. A quarter of continental Europes watershed is lost. I actually doubt there's much we could do, even if fully motivated. Feedback effects are already keyed in. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though. I've heard of ion engines, but never of a working model. I'm not so naive as to rule them out, just never seen one. Nor am I so green that I oppose nuclear reactors, but the fact is the available fissionable materials won't meet the demand in twenty years. On the bright side, I've been waiting three years for the a train station and they opened it today. Three miles away.

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

The fact that the glaciers aren't there doesn't disprove what I've cited, nor does it bolster the Carbon Footprint politic. It is merely observed phenomena that can be worked into a hypothesis. That's the great thing about data in isolation; it's anybody's game.

I'm glad we both agree on the need to change the system, though.

[Kevin McCabe]

Close enough. Gotta say, though, the scientists and engineers I met at the Sierra Club (before we split the sheets - most of them didn't mind playing both sides of the political fence for short-term gain - I did) made out a convincing argument for anthropic affect. But, they were so ideologically tied to so many environmental goals, they wouldn't agree on a comprehensive solution if it walked up and bit them on their collective ass. Nice folk, but deluded.

[Nathaniel]

Umm, adressing the "Climate change is a crock" position put foward by Vazkar and Kyrinn.

While I regard myself as a skeptic in many respects, I am inclined to distance myself from "climate skeptics" for a few reasons, and bizarly enough it is down to a "cost/benifit analysis"

let us consider two scenarios. In scenario A, climate change due to humans is not real. In scenario B climate change due to humans IS real.

Now, in scenario A, "buisiness as usual" will result in, well, buisiness as usual... while preparing for and addressing a percieved shift in climate will result in an increase in the cost of technological advancement, of a magnitude that could be dealt with if aproached carefully, with some painfull "teething problems"

In Scenario B, preparing for and addressing human induced climate change will result in an increase in the cost of technological advancement, of a magnitude that could be dealt with if aproached carefully, with some painfull "teething problems". Buisness as usual, however, will result in us being totaly f****d, permanantly. ( If you want an example of "runaway greenhouse effect" look at Venus, there is a planet that did not "self normalise")

Being that we don't know for sure whether we live in scenario A, or scenario B, we have to work out where to expend our resources. Do something about Climate Change results in painfull but bearable loss (and possibly an unescisarry one if it turns out we were actually in scenario A). Do nothing results in either the trends in "progress" we have seen for a while, or absolute destruction of our way of life (in a best case scenario, if we are in scenario B)

At this point maybe I should point out that I don't own a car, use public transport to get around (or walk). Pay extra premium for "green" electricity, switch lights off when not in the room, eat a VERY minimal amount of red meat, never provide my students with photocopied handouts unless absolutely required, don't flush the toilet unless it is number twosies, take 2 minute showers and make various other (what I feel are reasonable) eforts to minimise my personal carbon footprint. You may choose to interprit this as "puts his money where his mouth is" or as "He is a loony hippy, and can therefor be safely ignored" I will leave it to your judgement.

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

Well, Nathaniel, you live on the opposite side of the planet from me, so I don't know how much more you need remove yourself from me. If you feel so religiously about climate change, I'll certainly honour your holding to your position, knowing you will honour my holding to mine.

Best,

[Nathaniel]

Yeah Kyrinn, I actually do respect your position, since it seems to be "healthy political cynism" rather than "hockey sticks don't exist so climate change isn't real", and you also point out that there are some rather good alternitives (though I am not sure about this ion engine... I know about the prototype ion drives for space propulsion , but I thought they were so low yield as to be useless in atmosphere, but not an expert so I will take your word for it). I was really talking about Vazkar's statement.

The "I am suspicious of the climate change debate, because I can see how a power group could use it to further their program of controll" argument is certainly a reasonable position to take based on past experience, especialy since you don't seem to be against the implementations that would be required to avoid GW, just cautios of the groups sugesting the implementation.

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

Yay! Cool! I still have an Aussie Pyrate as an e-friend!

[Nathaniel]

Was ther ever any doubt?
Realy Kyrinn, you and I are both the sort to value sparing partners more than sycophants.

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

Lynx?

well... lol.
In any case, I'm pleased. I got me plenty o' foes, don't need em in virtual-land, too.

Okies, as regards alternative fuels, perhaps I was mistaken regarding the actual ionic aspect, but:

Here is one of the links
Here's another set of links
Last but not least, for the brainiacs: link

[UncleDes]

...

Teeny problem with water engines....

Water forms from the reaction of oxygen and water (from H+ and OH-, too, but the gas-phase one is the most exothermic). Gives off loads of heat and well-known as a fuel, of course.

In order for water to work as a fuel....

Well, it can't. It's already lost all the energy it had with all the heat that it gave off. If you're looking at water as a fuel: the energy has gone!

You can patent a perpetual motion machine that doesn't work. You don't have to reduce anything to practise to get a patent.

Another load of baloney: where does hydrogen come from? Does it appear out of thin air? No. It is formed industrially from the partial oxidation of hydrocarbons along with water. So it's made from oil... and CO2 is a byproduct. Sound familiar?

Des

[Kyrinn S. Eis]

Please tell me you actually watched these videos all the way through before you said that. Did you watch the one on the last link?

I'll wait for you to watch them all and re-comment, Des.

[Vazkar Asquinol]

Commenting on the reality or illusion of "Climate Change" as put forth by a variety of people.

One thing that really irritates me is that many of the proponants of the "reality" of climate change tend to be all or nothing types.

As I have stated previously, I do not believe that mankind is the sole cause of climate change. Now, just because I do not believe the propoganda does not mean that I advocate irresponsibility. I am also not ignorant enough to believe that mankind is not capable of damaging our environment irreparably. We have done many things that have caused our world to be a worse place than it was when we first gained conciousness.

That said, we are being fed alarmist propaganda on a magnitude that we have never seen before. The reason for this, IMHO, is that technology allows for a broader spectrum of people to be exposed to such, more so than in any time in history.

The world is a MUCH smaller place than it was 100 years ago and will continue to shrink as access to information is garnered by an ever increasing percentage of the populace.

We have a responsibilty to use this technology wisely. We are capable now of educating more people globally than at any time in our short existence. Why is it then that we still have severly under-educated peoples walking this earth?

Shame on us if we do not take advantage of that opportunity and to bring the rest of the world up to snuff (so to speak).

As much as technology allows us a broader scope of learning and understanding one another, it also allows a broader scope of falsified propaganda to be spread.