Spoilers! - Politics of beginings

biochem wrote:

And agreed that non-viable renewables shouldnt be built just because.


I'm not one of those who thinks we should go straight onto purely renewables. As you noted, at this stage that could cause problems. However, ignoring them is akin to a 2 pack a day smoker who knows he needs to cut down and quit ignoring nicotine patches because he justifies it by claiming he will go straight cold turkey the instant a better solution is found. renewables arent the complete answer, just one step in the right direction.

There are a lot of technical problems that only become apparent when one attempts to scale a technology. So leaping from lab scale to full blown industrial production is flawed from that perspective as well. That said the worst recession since the great depression isn't the best time to experiment with inefficient renewables.

The answer to the debate of which energy conservation strategy should be trialled is simple. All of them at various levels of intensity until proved viable or non viable.
I had an interesting insight into side benefits over the past couple of months while on holiday in Europe. To meet carbon reduction targets one of their strategies is to link car fuel consumption (CO2 emissions) to registration costs. The hire car I had was a 1.6 litre turbo diesel Ford Focus. This five seater had reasonable power yet the life time to date average fuel consumption was 50.4 miles per imperial gallon, over travel that was either in lower gears through congested streets or on motorways at about 140 kph. Interesting to see the speedo showing 80 mph while the steady rate consumption was 68 mpg. Thus a "green" initiative has provided a personal benefit of costing me less.

Fireflair wrote:I caught a bit on NPR this morning on my way into work about climate change and how the scientists are trying to predict it. By looking back at the previous major warming of the planet (20 Million+ years ago), and current observed trends. The report was rather fair, and didn't place specific blame. It wasn't about blame. Rather it focused more on what could happen and the impact that may have.

Carbonic acid build up in warmer oceans from CO absorption in the ocean. More violent weather patterns developing due to warmer currents. Increased rain in areas that had not previously experienced it.

The scientist that NPR was speaking with suggested that if we curb our own CO2 additions to the atmosphere in the next 20 years, vice, say, 80 years, we could see only an 8000 year adjustment period for the environment to shift in accommodation for the new, warmer temperatures. If we wait, we may see a 20,000 year+ period before the earth begins to resemble what we are used to.

I've heard many arguments for and against climate change. I fall down on the side that humans are screwing up a good thing, the Earth namely, by injecting more gasses into the atmosphere then would normally accumulate. I believe that our actions are busily speeding up changes that would occur far more gradually. As in millennia changes are happening in a decade or less. And in the end, not only are we hosing the planet, but ourselves.

Of course, that hasn't stopped me from driving my car, using all my nifty electronics or buying the nice plastic toys I want, either.