The Environment

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well then that's good that it's not nuclear power. What PPPL is doing has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power.

Correction; fusion is as much nuclear as fission. It is the nuclei that are used to generate power and thus it is nuclear power. Nuclear power, my dear JD, is not dependant on whether you combine deuterium nuclei or cleave uranium.

Before you reply I might add that fusion would be a lot safer than fission and that it unlike fission requires extremely high temperatures which result in plasma, but it is still nuclear power.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But right now fusion is impractical when you factor in the set up costs. Are you suggesting that we reject cooperating with other countries on global environmental issues and instead wait until we get fusion to the point where its worth doing? Dont you think fusion (over the next 50 years) could be PART of HOW we work with other countries in developing alternative energies?

Also I dont think we should be using an either/or way of thinking. There are plenty of other energy sources in the world that are likely to help replace fossil fuels before fusion comes on line simply because they (direct solar, ocean temperature, etc) can be utilized practically for a much lower capital cost.

Please tell me where I gave an either or? :rolleyes All I did was just show something that is being done. I can give numerous examples of other enery sources. Oh wait - I did - you just chose to ignore them. Remember the solar panels on the roofs of buldings. Here I'll say ot again maybe this time you will notice it...

On malls and schools in NJ - they tile the flat roofs with solar panels as one example of NJ using renewable energy. The question remains - but peopel don't really do the research on this - how much energy and resources does it take to produce the solar panels and how much trash do they produce when they are no longer working.

Also - if you look - NJ is also looking at ocean power, wind power and many other renewable energy sources - I quoted all those too.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Correction; fusion is as much nuclear as fission. It is the nuclei that are used to generate power and thus it is nuclear power. Nuclear power, my dear JD, is not dependant on whether you combine deuterium nuclei or cleave uranium.

Before you reply I might add that fusion would be a lot safer than fission and that it unlike fission requires extremely high temperatures which result in plasma, but it is still nuclear power.

When people say nuclear power - they are referring to fission - not fusion power. Which is why my dear Jonathan most people are against Nuclear, because it is so unsafe. So basically you are just nitpicking on the issue.

[The Gaffer]

I'll say this just one more time: the climate is changing because of the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not because of efficiency of production.

It's good that we all agree there is an economic cost to pay. Again, however, the climate is indifferent to anybody's "concerns" over particular treaties.

If people are concerned about the economic cost today of addressing climate change, what about the cost in 20-50 years of not addressing it? As I posted above, the very nature of economics means that this is NEVER going to look economically viable, so if we want to do something about it, we can't have the debate in economic terms.

It's possible to wish for a technological solution such as fusion of course, but personally I'm not willing to gamble my children's future on that. Existing renewables currently don't work on the scale needed. The only proven technology is nuclear, and we all know that brings problems of its own.

The fact is that we have to reduce our carbon emissions alongside investing in alternative technologies to have any hope at all.

Oh, and of all the fossil fuels used to generate power, coal produces the most CO2.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Russia has signed the Kyoto accord, thereby making it International Law.

Law for all those that signed the treaty, though. Which makes me think that it's a bloody good idea that Europe decided to go ahead with it even if both the USA and Russia (either of which was needed to put the treaty in work) turned it down at first. Now that Russia has agreed to the treaty, Europe doesn't have to start from zero again.

For Belgium, it's very convenient that Russia finally decided to join. Belgium has a tough target ahead (a cut of about 8% greenhouse gas emissions) which I doubt we will reach in time. We're a close inhabited country and we don't have many woods left to use as carbon sinks. We either have to reduce greatly or buy emission certificates. A lot of people here were hoping we'd be able to buy them from Russia, which will now be possible if need be.

But at least all three regions of Belgium are working at translating the treaty into legislation and setting up the organisation needed for implementing the treaty. Even if we don't meet the target, steps are being taken to reduce emissions and more awareness of global warming is created. Which is definitely positive.

Kyoto has it's flaws, but IMO for the sake of our environment a flawed treaty is better than none at all. At least this way the treaty can be tested and ajusted (at least I have hopes for that) which would never happen if it was dropped entirely.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for the Kyotot treaty - I think it is crap - it doesn't include the major polluters (such as China and India) and it would have put most of the burden on the US. Everyone argues about how much energy the US uses - but they refuse to look at how much we produce in products and so forth. We have made strides to reduce pollution through the years and the states have taken additional action.

The major polluters of green house gasses are China, India... and the USA. I don't really see why produce should be taken in consideration here. While sustainable development, which includes producing more with less pollution is also an environmental issue, it is not the issue here. Also, the ecological footprint of Europe and the USA is still many times larger than those of less developped countries. Still, it's commendable that states are seeing that pollution is a problem and take steps to reduce it outside any international framework.

[EarthBound]

I think the Thread should be called "The World Environment" or "Kyoto", since this really isn't the place for regional environmental discussion to remain on topic.

My 2 cents: Kyoto is a broken bike, some think it's better than having no vehicle at all, I personally would rather walk than creep on a bike with no chain. There also seems to be no true culmination of pollution controls already implemented upon given nation industry (by individual standards).

The US's EPA is no small entity and is a STRICT enforcer. Bush has recently lightened EPA's hand (unarguable, I get the inter-office memo's from the top on that one). But it is still a thorn to the industry (growth) and the economic slow-pitch found game back in the '70's, but we've managed to grow our economy ANYWAYS and IMPROVE our environment TREMONDOUSLY. The rivers I grew up with have improved quality by a HUGE significance. Air Quality has been greatly improved, and soil retention is been greatly reduced thanks to better agriculture land management practices (and forestry).

In the '90's there was still some forestry land abuse on PRIVATE lands (held by large lumber companies), I've seen it first hand, made me want to wretch. But I think those days are numbered for that type of abuse and certainly isn't allowed on public lands.

YaDaYaDaYaDa -- I think the "enviro-credit" deal is a joke. I think cutting back on power-plant pollution (air quality) threshold limits is a mistake. JD is right about Hydrogen, too costly to the enviro via production. Most people give a Hoot and Don't Pollute (70's slogan in the US). The world is waiting for the Nurv-Accord of 2006 to change the paradigm for The World Environment ...

Come on Nurv...save the world for us (I'll make the coffee).

[Nurvingiel]

I think "World Environment" was implied at the outset of this thread, and with a lack of any regions name in the thread title.

Maybe we should repair the broken bike? Chains aren't that difficult to get, all you need is the tool, and the will, to attach it.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

well, it looks like we in the UK are set to reduce our CO2 emissions considerabely

[Nurvingiel]

In the Venting thread, we got to talking about the environment when Nerdanel posted this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4355871.stm

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

fossil fuel usage must be phased out
public transportation in all cities worldwide
renewable energy worldwide

oh wait, it'll hit america's wallet, of course we can't

In the short term it will hit the USA and Canada's wallet. Canadians absolutely love driving as well, and we can whine about gas as much as the next guy. However, in the long run, we know there will no longer be any more oil. We should all look up to Charlie on the show Lost.

He's addicted to crack, and when the plane crashed, the stash he had in his pocket was the last of the drugs he could conceivably use. (It's possible that over time he could grow and manufacture his own, but that would take so long he would no longer be addicted.)
Now, he could have carefully used the rest of his drugs, but he knew he would run out. Rather than torture himself over it, he got rid of the drugs. He knew he would have to quit, and he was strong enough to do so on his time. Yes, the withdrawal will be painful and difficult, but he won't be dead. Given an unlimited supply of crack, it's highly likely he would have someday overdosed.

I think this situation is highly analagous to the world oil situation.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

nice analogy, nurv

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

In the Venting thread, we got to talking about the environment when Nerdanel posted this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4355871.stm


In the short term it will hit the USA and Canada's wallet. Canadians absolutely love driving as well, and we can whine about gas as much as the next guy. However, in the long run, we know there will no longer be any more oil. We should all look up to Charlie on the show Lost.

Well I disagree with Last Child's claim - it will hit Europeans and others just as much. We however are a VERY large country with great expanses that are not well populated. Public transportation is NOT an option in many locations. I'm sure he wouldn't understand this though - since he doesn't live here. There is great poublic transportation on the east coast (between washington and boston) because of the high density. But you still need a car in many areas - such as where I live. Sorry - I'm not going to spend an hour+ going to the store (that's just traveling time) to catch the bus when it only takes me 20 minutes by car. Where public transportation is FEASIBLE I take it - such as going into NY and I will sometimes take it to the airport, Philadelphia, Camden and Newark. But I'm not going to take it when it makes absolutely no sense to.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Where public transportation is FEASIBLE I take it [...]

A good point. I'm all for reducing unnecesary car use but not for giving up all cars immediatly, which is IMO unrealistic at this point. Public transport is indeed just not always a feasible option. There are a few places I sometimes need to go to and that are reachable by public transport but only if I change my bus three times and have to take the loops and long cuts their route has along with it. It could take me over half an hour more by bus than by bicycle but not everything is reachable by bike.

Sometimes you just need motorised private transportation. But then it must be a mode of private transport that is less polluting and less dependable on fossil fuels than it is now. And we have to change that quickly because we grow ever more dependant on fossil fuels and the need keeps rising while the reserves will only continue to dwindle. Looking for new reserves of fuels (and destroying wild life reserves while you're at it) is IMO the wrong (and worst way) of handling problem.

[Nurvingiel]

That's where city planning comes in. Now, this is complex and it takes a huge amount of effort and time to change the structure of a city, however, it's worth it in the long run.

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to take the bus for an hour to get groceries (bringing groceries home on the bus is a giant pain). However, what if the store was with walking or biking distance? That's how I've gotten my groceries (or by bus sometimes) for the past 3 years.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i live an hours bus ride from any town, and i only use bus travel

[Insidious Rex]

What was that about ignorance…

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

How are they diging up irreplaceable wildlife refuge? You are misrepresenting the facts here. It's not like they are digging up the WIOLE hting - it's not even 1% of the area that the oil field will be.

talk about misrepresenting… they want to drill up the ENTIRE ARTIC OCEAN COASTAL PLAIN! Its like saying oh I only want to drill 1% of New Jersey but it happens to be the area where your neighborhood sits. Well its not much land is it but it kind of screws you over. Just like drilling on a coastal plain (and by the way they already have rights to drill over the ENTIRE NORTH SLOPE) would screw over things for wild life in the ENTIRE refuge. Clearly there is some issues here with understanding how ecosystems work exactly. If you destroy the shore line of a vast ecosystem you effect the ENTIRE ecosystem. ESPECIALLY an ecosystem that is largely marshes and lagoons. This is the biological heart of the refuge we are talking about. The plain is the most important on-shore denning area in the United States for polar bears. It is the principal calving ground of the Alaska migratory caribou herd which is the second largest caribou herd in the US. Grizzly bears, wolverines, wolves, arctic foxes, whales and other species also use this resource to live. Its like saying hey lets dig up the mouth of the Mississippi and we can assume it wont effect any wildlife upriver. It’s a LONG river…

Furthermore its not simply about how much earth we would be digging up. When you drill for OIL the BIGGEST danger is contamination. You can take a tiny are of land, drill on it and contaminate a HUGE area of land surrounding it. At the Prudhoe Bay oilfield which is just 60 miles west of the refuge, spills of oil products and hazardous substances happen every DAY! (and those are just the ones that get reported). Nevermind the noise and air pollution that goes hand in hand with big drilling operations. When oil companies started drilling in Prudhoe Bay, the central arctic caribou herd shifted its calving grounds to an area with much lower quality resources. The end result is more dead caribou. More great morals. Anything for a buck right? Maybe a “buck” but not a caribou apparently… *rim shot *

And this is just the common every day stuff. Lest I bring up the name Exxon Valdez again? Or have we all conveniently forgotten what kind of enormous damage ONE spill can do to wildlife in a region. The Exxon Valdez spill happened in 1989 and it killed animals in ecosystems as far away as South America. Its STILL killing some animals even TODAY. Again, is this all worth it to you just so you can fill your SUVs up and be fooled into thinking it will actually make a difference at the pump? Because it wont.

I see nothing wrong with the wildlife refuge being used. From what world news tonight said concerning it - it isn't a small amount of oil - but will produce more oil per a day than saudi arabia and venezuela.

more misinformation. At BEST guesses theres enough oil in this region to last us (the US) a year, maybe 18 months. More likely less then a year. Even the big oil companies know this. that’s why they haven’t been lobbying for this in over a year. In fact congress may have to SUBSIDIZE them in order for them to go ahead and drill there. And people yell about farm subsidies. How about subsidies so that big oil companies will make huge amounts of money by drilling up wild life refuges. That’s sure awesome morals ONCE AGAIN…

oh AND we wouldn’t see any of it till 2010 at the earliest. AND the Alaska based oil groups are more interested in selling this oil to asia then piping it down to the US. So basically republicans in congress want to kill off dozens of species and destroy a national wildlife refuge so that oil companies can get rich selling Alaskan oil to Korea and China… And you support this? Great morals guys. *thumbs up*

Are you aware that it wont make a drop of a difference? That OPEC or even Saudi Arabia alone could counter this drop in the bucket by cutting production slightly thus completely neutralizing any price drop digging up the wild life refuge may have by 2010? Apparently not.

We will NEVER overcome our energy issues by DIGGING FOR OIL. It cant be said enough. So the republicans REALLY need to get over it. And they need to instead pour all this money into alternative source research but they wont. Because Bush’s and Chaney’s oil buddy cronies are much too powerful an influence. And if it means killing off a few dozen or hundred species so that they can stuff their bank accounts a bit more then they’ll happily do it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Also - opponents like to show all this film footage of pristine forests in Alaska. But that's south of the North Slope. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is snow and ice over tundra. Pretty much a wasteland. Yes - there are caribou, and other creatures, but as JD points out, only a small percentage of the land would need to be drilled for us to reach the oil reserves. (EDIT: and the wildlife that is there is pretty sparse - the ecosystem there can't support a lot of life, what with the cold, the hard ground, how the sun is out of view for half the year and just circles the horizon for the other half )

what are you talking about its absolutely NOT a wasteland. Maybe it doesn’t look good to YOU but to 1000 other species it looks perfect. Its primarily marsh and lagoon. Its the biological heart of the refuge. Its an area critical to the survival of many birds and mammals. About 160 bird species, including species that visit each of the lower 48 states, find breeding, nesting or resting places on the coastal plain. You take this away and you cause a domino effect among native wildlife there. It’s the height of short sighted misunderstanding of basic ecosystem biology to say eh its ugly. Those animals don’t need it. dig it up! I got SUVs to drive!

This has always seemed odd to me. It seems like drilling for oil in our own country should be viewed more favorably than drilling in other countries. It seems hypocritical to say, "Well - we shouldn't mess up this part of Alaska - but hey, the Middle East, the ocean floor... no problem!"

Last time I checked we don’t control what Saudi Arabia does or what other countries do as far as their natural resources go. And last time I checked Alaska was part of the United States. Are you saying we shouldn’t have a voice in what happens in one of our states because we don’t have a direct voice in what happens in middle east countries?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

the only wasteland on earth is artificial - every other "wasteland" will certainly be home to an abundance of life other than humasn, hey big news here - humans are NOT the most important thing on this planet

nice posts IR

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What was that about ignorance…



talk about misrepresenting… they want to drill up the ENTIRE ARTIC OCEAN COASTAL PLAIN! Its like saying oh I only want to drill 1% of New Jersey but it happens to be the area where your neighborhood sits. Well its not much land is it but it kind of screws you over. Just like drilling on a coastal plain (and by the way they already have rights to drill over the ENTIRE NORTH SLOPE) would screw over things for wild life in the ENTIRE refuge. Clearly there is some issues here with understanding how ecosystems work exactly. If you destroy the shore line of a vast ecosystem you effect the ENTIRE ecosystem. ESPECIALLY an ecosystem that is largely marshes and lagoons. This is the biological heart of the refuge we are talking about. The plain is the most important on-shore denning area in the United States for polar bears. It is the principal calving ground of the Alaska migratory caribou herd which is the second largest caribou herd in the US. Grizzly bears, wolverines, wolves, arctic foxes, whales and other species also use this resource to live. Its like saying hey lets dig up the mouth of the Mississippi and we can assume it wont effect any wildlife upriver. It’s a LONG river…

Furthermore its not simply about how much earth we would be digging up. When you drill for OIL the BIGGEST danger is contamination. You can take a tiny are of land, drill on it and contaminate a HUGE area of land surrounding it. At the Prudhoe Bay oilfield which is just 60 miles west of the refuge, spills of oil products and hazardous substances happen every DAY! (and those are just the ones that get reported). Nevermind the noise and air pollution that goes hand in hand with big drilling operations. When oil companies started drilling in Prudhoe Bay, the central arctic caribou herd shifted its calving grounds to an area with much lower quality resources. The end result is more dead caribou. More great morals. Anything for a buck right? Maybe a “buck” but not a caribou apparently… *rim shot *

And this is just the common every day stuff. Lest I bring up the name Exxon Valdez again? Or have we all conveniently forgotten what kind of enormous damage ONE spill can do to wildlife in a region. The Exxon Valdez spill happened in 1989 and it killed animals in ecosystems as far away as South America. Its STILL killing some animals even TODAY. Again, is this all worth it to you just so you can fill your SUVs up and be fooled into thinking it will actually make a difference at the pump? Because it wont.



more misinformation. At BEST guesses theres enough oil in this region to last us (the US) a year, maybe 18 months. More likely less then a year. Even the big oil companies know this. that’s why they haven’t been lobbying for this in over a year. In fact congress may have to SUBSIDIZE them in order for them to go ahead and drill there. And people yell about farm subsidies. How about subsidies so that big oil companies will make huge amounts of money by drilling up wild life refuges. That’s sure awesome morals ONCE AGAIN…

oh AND we wouldn’t see any of it till 2010 at the earliest. AND the Alaska based oil groups are more interested in selling this oil to asia then piping it down to the US. So basically republicans in congress want to kill off dozens of species and destroy a national wildlife refuge so that oil companies can get rich selling Alaskan oil to Korea and China… And you support this? Great morals guys. *thumbs up*

Are you aware that it wont make a drop of a difference? That OPEC or even Saudi Arabia alone could counter this drop in the bucket by cutting production slightly thus completely neutralizing any price drop digging up the wild life refuge may have by 2010? Apparently not.

We will NEVER overcome our energy issues by DIGGING FOR OIL. It cant be said enough. So the republicans REALLY need to get over it. And they need to instead pour all this money into alternative source research but they wont. Because Bush’s and Chaney’s oil buddy cronies are much too powerful an influence. And if it means killing off a few dozen or hundred species so that they can stuff their bank accounts a bit more then they’ll happily do it.

Well then IR - give up your car, don't buy any magazines, newspapers, plastic products, don't buy anything that requires shipping and don't fly.

I will post to your usual sarcastic remarks at another time.

[IronParrot]

Speaking as a Canadian... Kyoto is pretty stupid. Others have gone into the reasons why and done so far better, so I will not repeat that here.

One thing that I find is often neglected when it comes to environmental issues is that it's really not the First World and its industrial production that we should be worried about the most. Canada is fairly clean, with recycling programmes firmly entrenched in both the infrastructure and the culture. Everybody recycles. It's a given. I'm not sure if it's the same throughout the States, but from what I have seen, it's relatively well off itself.

In the crowded countries of the Old World and the developing, overpopulated urban centres of Asia, this culture of environmental consciousness doesn't exist - and to add to that, litter is rampant. It's almost like a 19th-century phase, in some respects. The immediate health of city-dwellers in urban and urbanizing locales is the real concern, not... "emissions."

[Earniel]

Just saw a little news item on teletext. (Translation mine)

Bad score in Canadian Environmental rapport

Belgium scored badly in a Canadian environmental report. The report was compiled by the Simon Fraser University and a environmental organisation, the David Suzuki Foundation. They researched the 30 most important industrial countries. Belgium was penultimate. Only the United States did worse.

The researchers checked among others the use of water and energy and production of nuclear waste per capita, the energy-efficiency, the share of sustainable energy, the CO2-emission, the use of fertilisers and pesticides and the number of hectares of green areas. The data was gathered by the OECD.

Belgium, however, is second best when dealing with waste recycling.

Belgium's bad score is in the line of other reports. The Swiss-based World Economic Forum (WEF) announced at the start of this year that Belgium ranked 112th of the 146 compared countries.

Interestingly enough Turkey won first place, Poland the fourth and Slovakia fifth. They thank their good score to their relative weak developed economies, which allows them to pollute less or use less materials per capita.

You'll have to forgive me that I wonder who should be more ashamed by this news item, my country or the big one across the ocean. Managing to rank behind us on environmental issues is pretty bad in itself.

The bad score of Belgium on environmental issues is nothing new and something I personally find terribly embarrassing. It seems only so slow progress is made in the field.