@dagosa - “We do everything we can BECAUSE we don’t know the exact amount.”
Well, there’s a difference between ‘can’ and ‘should’. That’s my problem with a number of things proposed to cut CO2 emissions. Sure, we ‘can’ try and put in, say, cross-country hight speed rail, but ‘should’ we? It comes down to $$ - we could cut CO2 a lot more with the $1 trillion cost of rail by increasing car efficiency, truck efficiency, power generation efficiency. My point - we need to spend the (very limited) amount of money we have where it makes the most sense, where we get the most reduction per $$ spent.
And we have to avoid neat sounding, but bad ideas, like biodiesel that turns out to be made from palm oil planted in former rain forests.
I’ m with you on biodiesel. IMO it’s about as practical as ethanol withit’s own set of problems.
But…Everything we do with little exception that’s good for the environment provides an immediate economic stimulus, decreases our dependency on oil and saves money in the long run. It isn’t a question of of not being able to afford, we can’t afford not to do it. The local example I deal with is road maintenance around our lake. Using over sized culverts, proper gravel and frequent grading, saves our fish and wildlife, deceases our chance damage to our lake and cost 1/3 the amount in road maintenance over ten years.
It’s generally a fallacy with most (there are always exceptions) things that we do to preserve the environment cost too much. Think of the death and distruction in New Orleans that many think could have been prevented by not using cost cutting levy engineering. They paid $$$$$$ for that savings. Cross country rail a mistake…perhaps. But working towards the most environmentally friendly way of moving people, is a no brainer. But, you are right to discuss the most effective way, and rail may not be it. There was a reason long haul trucking surplanted many freight train lines.
Dagosa,maybe for the same reason diesel electric,replaced steam locomotives-not cheaper, but for the App. better.You are right on about pay me now or later,its cheaper now.A little money for the enviroment now ,will pay big dividends later(we dont have but one world,now if you can get the rest of the user’s to kick in their part.Unfortunately I cant do that, people use and abuse our driveway,because they have a right of way there and have the nerve to bitch about it if it doesnt suit them and run over on my grass,on my property and fly down through here covering Moms property with dust when its dry.-Kevin (PS,most people are users first then neighbors second-somekind of a sense of entitlement I guess.)
Kevin…I’m not advocating this by any means. But, a good friend had a similar problem. A well place metal property stake found it’s way in a tresspasser’s oil pan. He had staked out the ROW with wood stakes and string with orange marker tape that tresspasser’s seemed fit to run over just before impaleing his car.
Yes"The thousand injuries of Fortunato,…"I know dad gum it,but it makes a man want to bite his tongue at times.People were always telling me that I set my delineaters too close,but they didnt have but a 16 ft of way to start with and only 8FT of it on my side,always trying to drive around the water breaks.the old timers were good about putting roads in the bottom of hollows.The protocol is that the people who use the road the most have the most to contribute with a corresponding smaller fraction with each entrance on the way out,till the last user who shares with the users.The trouble is the greatest users dont think they have help maintain your stretch they share with you. Like Rodney Dangerfield said “I get no respect”.However as a race of sapient beings,we need to learn respect for others and the rest of nature, as much as I am against pavement,there instances when it is far better for the enviroment.And if it wasnt for the expense and other problems,veggie oil and alcohol are a lot better on the enviroment.After the initial toxicity is over I dont think a spilled tanker full of Ethyl Alcohol in the ocean would present much of along term problem.And an excellent Diesel fuel can be made from coal.But take heart folks we yet may be blindsided by the next miracle in transportation(gas is clean and relatively low in carbon) I guess we need to save the heavy hydrocarbon fuel for the big boys(they used to use electric shovels in the old quarrys)-Kevin
For what it’s worth my son is a degreed Climatologist and the bottom line on climate discussion is that we just don’t know; although the hucksters out there don’t see it that way.
While he was visiting over Xmas he told me something that kind of amazed me and this is in regards to the carbon footprint and carbon credit thing.
He said that if someone is sincerely concerned about that carbon footprint they would do one of 2 things; plant a single tree or chop down a near dead one and replace it with a new one.
That one healthy tree will offset any CO2 you generate for the rest of your life.
A book that provides some good insight into the alleged global warming scenario is Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. The storyline is fictitious but the charts and diagrams are directly from GISS, NOAA, etc. If anyone decides to peruse that novel separate the storyline from the data and ponder the info given.
As we speak, government agencies for your good are preparing for climate change and investigating ways of reversing, slowing down or living with it. They have accepted the challenge on our behalf, why can’t the rest of us ? That includes natural gas use (plug) and is supported by the opinion of most climatologists.
The problem of accepting analogies of replacing one tree to offset your CO 2 foot print is one, there are vast populations of people incapable of doing it for various reasons so their foot print is never covered over, and two, mankind as we speak is decimating rain Forrest trees and entire ecosystems in the name of progress on a scale that makes any single person or group of people incapable of compensating.
And no, some may be not ready to identify our reasons for believing or not believing in climate change based upon the work of a fiction writer…and the charts he chooses to display.
Well guys as many trees as I have planted I should be good to go.However,it is true a tree will sequesterCO2-but when it burns or the bugs eat it up the CO2 is released back into the enviroment-unless it turns into fossil fuel(coal, or is buried where it wont rot or degrade or turned into char or used to build something thats preserved)However there has been speculation that parts of the ocean could be fertilized with Iron powder and the resulting algae bloom would sequester thousands of tonsof CO2 when the plants died and sank to the to Davey Jones locker.But plant the trees there are numerous other benefits as well-Kevin
While my daughter doesn’t have a degree in Climatology…she does have a BS in Chemical Engineering from MIT and was on a research team her junior and senior team with 2 of the leading Climatologists in the world. Her PHd at Harvard is taking a different route so she’s not that close with the debate anymore.
While there are a few holdouts who completely disregard the overwhelming evidence that the world is getting warmer…there’s still a debate on what future global warming will have. Some like the Al Gore crowd are making some wild predictions. While what they say COULD come true…it doesn’t mean it will come true. The Earth is a chaotic system that has ways of healing itself. How it will effect us is what the debate that’s going on now in the scientific community. The few (less then 1% of the world scientists that study this) don’t factor in much. They’re just noise now. The other part of the debate is what we actually can do about it. How much we are actually contributing to the problem??
Your daughter works in an area where you work with facts mostly, and you can’t make political statements in such a profession.
My son has a Master’s degree in Environmental Science and an MBA in Sustainable Energy Economics. He works for a major energy firm and is engaged in making energy extraction more environmentally benign and also more economical. The area of unconventional reserves, where he works, will see us through the next 50-100 years when noncarbon energy sources can make a major contribution.
In the mean time, conservation, cleaning up production, and not cutting down all those trees, together with ADAPTATION will see us through.
Just recently a scientist shot his political mouth off by stating that the melting of the ARCTIC ICE CAP would cause sea levels to rise!!! It’s floating ice that SHRINKS as it turns into water again and will have no effect on sea levels.
Yes, Mr.Fusion
As in the movie Back To The Future 2. ( google Mr.Fusion )
We all must wonder just how many ‘‘what ifs’’ will become ‘‘remember whens’’.
See the short video at www.huffingtonpost.com entitled ‘10 sci-fi predictions that became science reality’.
It’s extermely interesting to see just how long ago some of these ideas were thought of as laughable.
Moon landings
Scuba diving
credit cards
robotics
CDs and DVDs
i-pad
closed circuit tv
geo-syncronous satelites
genetic engineering
internet
The natural gas station idea may become so commonplace that we’ll look back at posts like this and laugh too.
And what other currently alternative fuels could become so commonplace as to make gasoline a…dinosaur ?
Getting back to natural gas, and my reluctance to accept that it’s abundance here will automatically result in low transportation costs and freedom from world price fixes, please read; http://www.startribune.com/business/114181269.html
We ultimately as consumers at the pump will be facing the same price volatility with our gas powered vehicles as we do our gasoline powered. Greed without competition does that.
So gas exports are bad, all other exports are good? The huge projects that would result should be forbidden? The economic benefits ignored.
Companies have cut way back on their gas exploration and development because of the current glut of natural gas in the US. If we want a stable market, not a boom and bust market, we need to allow exports. We were happy to get all these other counties imports, VERY upset when they cut us off…but it’s OK if we control exports?
“Greed without competition” - sounds like most all businesses fail your “test”.
Texases…you miss the point. Touting by many that all of our natural gas resources will solve our transportation energy source high prices is not necessarily true. The contention is that the price comparison by btu was much less for natural gas. Companies can put gas on the world market and we are back to where we are with gasoline pricing. So gas is not a panacea for high energy prices without a change in public policy.
Is there a reason you mistake my showing this probable scenario as me thinking it’s bad ? You put words in my mouth. Never said in all this discussion, anything was bad or good…but there is a reality, and real cheap nat gas as a transportation fuel will only come to pass, according to Pickens in the article as well as others if we address this exportation issue. That has to do with both taxation as well as exportation.
Discussions are not always…all or nothing and but a balanced approach. To answer your statement this way …yes, some excessive exports are BAD…just like allowing some excessive imports are as well. If the government’s general roll is to protect the populous, self defense includes their roll in what is allowed in or out of this country. Yes, secured energy is important for our national defense. If that includes what we ship in nat gas over seas…count me in.
Corporations, even as contractors for our government, if left to their own devises,have and will, export technology, weapons and energy for profit to a degree that affects nation security. Government has a role to play in monitoring these sales as government is responsible for this security. Meeting this need must include other energy options (other competitive energy courses) for this security. Covering the exportation of natural gas with the same blanket as other exports like California wine is pretty short sighted.
You take the “greed without competition” phrase completely out of context to make what point? …greed without competition in powering our vehicles results in price volatility… You’re welcome, I 'm glad to help with reading comprehension on this point.
Here’s a guarantee: if we don’t experiment with other transportation fuels than gasoline and diesel, we will continue to see eye-popping increases in price. If we bring natural gas into widespread use as Brazil did with ethanol. we can slow the increase in cost. Between burgeoning Asian markets and speculators trying to waylay their tanker for a couple of months to screw us for another buck-a-gallon, the costs will rise unabated.
The root cause is the problem no politician will address…Endless economic “growth” which requires endless population growth… There comes a point where demand for resources simply can not be met.