Thank you, USA!
-
You won't often hear me say that, but if this is true: Politicians Listen to the Polluters at UN climate talks UN climate talks in Durban have ended the same way they began, in failure. Governments at the UN climate talks have chosen to listen to the polluters over the people and failed to reinforce previous climate saving measures and have steered clear of new global rules for tackling climate change. ... "The grim news is that the blockers lead [sic] by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding. If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented 'from 2020' leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak," said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director. - Greenpeace Africa, December 11, 2011 Again, my thanks. Now let's work for economically feasible schemes of emissions reduction over time.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
ict558 wrote:
economically feasible schemes
From the little I know I doubt there is such a thing, the 1st world countries got there on the back of huge emissions, the 3rd world wants to get there, and the 1st world won't sacrifice their lifestyle. Big business won't retool to less insane technologies, fossil fuels are still the mainstay of our energy base. Good luck with that! [edit]Oh and I hate being negative without any positive input! [/edit]
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
ict558 wrote:
economically feasible schemes
From the little I know I doubt there is such a thing, the 1st world countries got there on the back of huge emissions, the 3rd world wants to get there, and the 1st world won't sacrifice their lifestyle. Big business won't retool to less insane technologies, fossil fuels are still the mainstay of our energy base. Good luck with that! [edit]Oh and I hate being negative without any positive input! [/edit]
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
ict558 wrote:
economically feasible schemes
From the little I know I doubt there is such a thing, the 1st world countries got there on the back of huge emissions, the 3rd world wants to get there, and the 1st world won't sacrifice their lifestyle. Big business won't retool to less insane technologies, fossil fuels are still the mainstay of our energy base. Good luck with that! [edit]Oh and I hate being negative without any positive input! [/edit]
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Perhaps "work toward less economically suicidal schemes of emissions reduction" then.
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
Big business won't retool to less insane technologies
The most insane technology that I have come across is wind turbines as a source of energy.
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
fossil fuels are still the mainstay of our energy base
And are likely to remain so. It can only be a matter of time before we utilise our gas resources in the North West and replace coal with gas fired power stations. (That would reduce emissions - a little.) It is now a generation since Chernobyl, so I expect less opposition to the use of nuclear as the future main energy source.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
insane technologies
Why are fossil fuels insane?
============================== Nothing to say.
Finite resource which will devolve to using coal and that is a grubby power source. I believe there are better sources of fuel. Personally I think nuclear should have a wider application, the wider the tech is used the better it will get, hopefully redusing the incidence of problems. I regret that Japan is having a knee jerk reaction to their recent problem. I consider the earthquake an unavoidable part of doing business on the planet!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Finite resource which will devolve to using coal and that is a grubby power source. I believe there are better sources of fuel. Personally I think nuclear should have a wider application, the wider the tech is used the better it will get, hopefully redusing the incidence of problems. I regret that Japan is having a knee jerk reaction to their recent problem. I consider the earthquake an unavoidable part of doing business on the planet!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Well, the use of fossil fuels goes back a very long way, when they were easy to exploit and we had no care about their long term availability so in fact they were a very sane choice at the time, and still are today. So, being finite, that isnt a problem. We will use the resource and as it becomes too expensive switch to other sources. As for being dirty, yes, coal is, but of course smoke stacks could scrub the particulates out, perhaps with a Dyson style vortex filter he designed for diesels? Re nuculear, the French firm that produces nuculear plants had its stock suspended on the CAC due to the fukishima backlash.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Well, the use of fossil fuels goes back a very long way, when they were easy to exploit and we had no care about their long term availability so in fact they were a very sane choice at the time, and still are today. So, being finite, that isnt a problem. We will use the resource and as it becomes too expensive switch to other sources. As for being dirty, yes, coal is, but of course smoke stacks could scrub the particulates out, perhaps with a Dyson style vortex filter he designed for diesels? Re nuculear, the French firm that produces nuculear plants had its stock suspended on the CAC due to the fukishima backlash.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
CAC due to the fukishima backlash.
This I call a knee jerk reaction. I'm astonished the Fukishima plant survived as much as it did, that was ons horendous situation. I come down firmly on the side of the greenies, even with little knowlede about the real issues, it just feels like the right thing to do.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Finite resource which will devolve to using coal and that is a grubby power source. I believe there are better sources of fuel. Personally I think nuclear should have a wider application, the wider the tech is used the better it will get, hopefully redusing the incidence of problems. I regret that Japan is having a knee jerk reaction to their recent problem. I consider the earthquake an unavoidable part of doing business on the planet!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Besides all concerns about safety and besides having no real idea what to do with the nuclear waste: Do you know how limited the supply of Uranium is?
And from the clouds a mighty voice spoke:
"Smile and be happy, for it could come worse!"And I smiled and was happy
And it came worse. -
Besides all concerns about safety and besides having no real idea what to do with the nuclear waste: Do you know how limited the supply of Uranium is?
And from the clouds a mighty voice spoke:
"Smile and be happy, for it could come worse!"And I smiled and was happy
And it came worse.CDP1802 wrote:
Do you know how limited the supply of Uranium is
Nope, I was under the impression it was not uncommon. As an Oz all I know is we export it, along with any other natural resource we can dig up!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
CDP1802 wrote:
Do you know how limited the supply of Uranium is
Nope, I was under the impression it was not uncommon. As an Oz all I know is we export it, along with any other natural resource we can dig up!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Uranium is very rare. It is too heavy to be cooked up in a star's natural fusion process (which goes up to iron in the largest stars) and only is the product of the temporary fusion reactions during a star's explosion. The elements created in one of the star's fusion cycles (which last at least several hundred million, if not billions of years) are far more abundant.
And from the clouds a mighty voice spoke:
"Smile and be happy, for it could come worse!"And I smiled and was happy
And it came worse. -
Uranium is very rare. It is too heavy to be cooked up in a star's natural fusion process (which goes up to iron in the largest stars) and only is the product of the temporary fusion reactions during a star's explosion. The elements created in one of the star's fusion cycles (which last at least several hundred million, if not billions of years) are far more abundant.
And from the clouds a mighty voice spoke:
"Smile and be happy, for it could come worse!"And I smiled and was happy
And it came worse.On Earth it's not rare at all, it's only rare compared to say Silicon. U-235 is rare, but we could just build breeder reactors and use U-238 and Thorium, of which is there plenty. Most breeder reactors have been killed by politics, but who knows. Point is, it can be done, and when it becomes economically favorable, it will be done. As a bonus, they can breed medium-lived radioactive isotopes from regular waste and reduce them to long-lived isotopes (which the general public will baww about, but it's a good thing because it means less radiation).
-
You won't often hear me say that, but if this is true: Politicians Listen to the Polluters at UN climate talks UN climate talks in Durban have ended the same way they began, in failure. Governments at the UN climate talks have chosen to listen to the polluters over the people and failed to reinforce previous climate saving measures and have steered clear of new global rules for tackling climate change. ... "The grim news is that the blockers lead [sic] by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding. If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented 'from 2020' leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak," said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director. - Greenpeace Africa, December 11, 2011 Again, my thanks. Now let's work for economically feasible schemes of emissions reduction over time.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
This is capitalism at its best. We don't buy, they wont pollute. It's not up to politicians, it's up to us.
"You get that on the big jobs."
RobCroll wrote:
This is capitalism at its best. We don't buy, they wont pollute.
Capitalist companies will buy from whichever source helps them remain competitive. Otherwise their investors will have something to say about it. Similarly, as US and EU real incomes dwindle, how many are going to forgo their cheap goods just because the manufacturers (or the manufactures of x% of the components) of said goods are polluters?
RobCroll wrote:
It's not up to politicians, it's up to us.
Don't recollect that working with US or UK pollution. Legislation was required in order to ensure that all companies complied. (Also ensuring that environmentally responsible companies were not placed at a disadvantage with respect to 'cowboy' competitors.)
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.