Re: OT-global warming heatwave

vancouver bc is oceanfront and mountain front,,, as the mtns start in the
ocean and rise up north vancouver and west van,,, after the first mtns-
grouse,seymour, cypress,, it is no mans land beyond that!!!!

i noticed while fishing the Stave lake/river,, they have now posted warning
signs,, telling folks that -should an earthquake occurr get the heck out,,
as the 2 dams holding back Stave lake would burst and send a torrent of
water down into the lower area,,, flooding/destroying everything below
it,,, !!!

they have posted these signs all along the drive up to the lake ,

we have alot of lakes fed by glacial melt, winter snow packs,, i am sure
they could drill under them , and build this kind of power project,,,

i just heard on candian news , that a study has concluded that there is
actual evidence of global warming in northern canada since 1925- 1999 , they
examined charts etc,, and found that we have massive increase in rains up
north ,, caused by human influences,,,

so global warming is now REAL, this study concluded. it is measurable in
this case, they stated that none of this new weather pattern is attributed
to Natural environmental issues,, it was man made!!!

cheers
bobbyD




"Alex" <akfromak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iMednclXTfhIPTjbnZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
Well, I wouldn't consider myself "educated" on the subject, at all. Far
from it, in fact.

But I did, *somehow*, manage to wrangle my thoughts together enough to
summarize what I understand the opposition issues to each technology to
be.

BTW, I would guess that there might be opportunities similar to the Tyee
Lake project I talked about, in your neck of the woods.

I think your geography is similar to Southeast Alaska, isn't it?
Coastal mountain ranges, etc.

Alex


bobbyD wrote:
great summary man!!!!!!!!!!

totally educated imo!!!!!
cheers
bobbyD


"Alex" <akfromak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qbudnRe56YV38T7bnZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
hantayo wrote:
Oh - come on. I can't believe that there are still people out there
that
can't see the writing on the wall. I suppose we should just keep on
doing
nothing & just wait. :-/
Well, for my part, thats *not* what I said. See my quoted reply to
bobbyD below, where I said:

"Now, obviously, pollution is bad, there are no two ways about that, and
I think we should be doing everything we can to reduce it."

We are affecting the climate - that's pretty
obvious. Do you guys believe in evolution? Just wondering.......
Kathy K.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Although what that has to do with
anything, I don't know.

Is pollution bad? Absolutely. Have we screwed up the environment? No
question about it. Do I think we are affecting the climate? Sure. Is
it the *sole* cause of global warming? I don't know. Could it be a
combination of factors, known & unknown, man made & natural? Thats a
possibility, too.

What is the solution?

Look, we all know that there are clean alternatives, either available or
in development. The problem is that for every alternative, there is
some group or another that rails against it.

Obviously, anything burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment, but
lets look at the resistance or outright opposition to the alternatives:

Hydro power: dams are bad for the fish, and stream/river ecology in
general.

Although, I do have to note that I worked on a unique project in
Southeast Alaska, back in my, ahem, younger days. It involved tunneling
back and up, into the bottom of a lake, with the power plant located on
the shoreline, discharging the water into the ocean. No dam involved at
all.
http://www.fdppa.org/servlet/content/10.html

Obviously, this type of project involves a specific set of geological
and climatological circumstances, the "lay of the land", so to speak,
and there is no problem keeping a lake filled in Southeast Alaska! (You
don't get a tan there, you just rust.) But I do believe that there are
other opportunities available for similar projects.

Wind power: windmill farms are ugly; all the birds will fly into the
windmills & die; takes up "valuable" real estate; the NIMBY syndrome,
"Not in *my* back yard!"

Solar power: possibly perceived as too expensive by the average
homeowner. Although it may be cheaper in the long run, I think that
most people don't consider that enough, they only see the initial
expense; for those that can easily afford it, its not "pretty", sitting
up on the roof of their McMansions; its not practical for the large,
centralized distribution model, as we have now.

At one time, I recall reading about using the power of the ocean tides
to generate electricity. I haven't heard a lot about that recently, but
then, I haven't specifically looked it up, either. Not knowing much
about the concept, I don't know what the drawbacks/impact might be or if
its still on the table.

The best option, in my opinion, is the one that attracts the *most*
opposition.

Nuclear power: too dangerous; waste disposal issues; and most of all,
even for those that are not totally opposed to it, the NIMBY syndrome.
"Yeah, its a great idea, just not near *me*."

On the transportation side, I think the best (current) option is
hydrogen fuel cells. But we're not quite ready for that, as far as fuel
distribution is concerned.

The other issue with it, of course, will be cost to the consumer. Any
new technology will be expensive, at first, slowing the uptake by the
consumer. Will the consumer embrace it fast enough for it to become
viable?

Its the old "chicken or the egg" conundrum. If the distribution system
is not widely available, the consumer will not purchase the car. After
all, what good is the car, if you can't get the fuel? But will the
companies involved invest in the fuel distribution system, based solely
on speculation that the consumer will embrace the technology and buy the
cars in sufficient volume to justify their costs?

Mass transit is the other option that I believe should receive *much*
more attention. However, taxpayers seem to not like that option. At
least in our area. We also have the opposition to anything that might
make it easier for people to move here from the nearby major cities.
Again, the NIMBY syndrome.

And lets face it, here in the US, we are in love with our cars. Other
than maybe New York City, where mass transit is a way of life by
*necessity*, but other areas of the country just seem opposed to it.

I would *love* to be able to hop on mass transit and be able to go visit
Philadelphia (about an hour away, by car) or NYC (supposedly two hours
away, but with traffic congestion now, who knows? I know that when I
was still working and had to go there for service calls, I *never* made
it in two hours). Sadly, with regard to mass transit in our area, to
quote a famous saying: You can't get there from here.

Now, I must admit that I'm biased on this issue. I can no longer drive,
so I *must* rely on someone else to get me where I need to go, if its
not local, in wheelchair range. For me, wheelchair accessible mass
transit would be a blessing.

Granted, we do have local bus service, wheelchair accessible, but that
only gets you around the local area. What we really need here is some
kind of connector service to the Philadelphia and NY/NJ transit
services. We certainly have enough folks that live here, but work in
those areas, that, if convinced, could use mass transit, rather than
driving. The hurdle is the convincing, the breaking of the love affair
with our cars.

My last point is the issue of, for lack of a better word, I guess,
"fairness" or "equality".

I believe that most consumers are price sensitive, meaning that
generally, if there is a cheaper alternative product, they will take it.
Just look at the success of Wal-Mart for a prime example. Its no
secret that they are a *major* importer from China. [As an aside, does
anyone else remember when Wal-Mart championed "Union Made" or "Made in
the USA", or something like that, with big signs with American flags on
them, in their stores?]

Should a country, mandate to businesses, that they *must* spend the
money to reduce emissions, while other countries, notably China, but
others as well, do not take such steps? Thereby driving up the cost of
doing business, and discouraging businesses from locating themselves or
expanding in that country?

In my opinion, the answer to that scenario, is that if the country of
origin is not taking sufficient steps to reduce emissions, then the
importing country should assess an "emissions" import duty, to balance
the scale.

Of course, the real solution would be to get all countries on board with
a global agreement/treaty.

The problem, however, is that the developing/poor countries, generally,
seem to be opposed to such an agreement. The cheapest methods are often
the dirtiest. They, literally, can't afford the cleaner technology.
Without firm commitments from "richer" nations to assist them, and the
actual *follow through* on those commitments, what options do they have?

Lets be honest about it, from a development standpoint, *we*, and many
other developed countries, advanced on the back of the environment,
using the dirty methods. True, maybe we didn't necessarily understand
the consequences at the time. But to try to tell other, developing
nations that they can't do what we did, *without assistance*, is rather
hypocritical, in my view. "We did it, to build *our* national economy,
but you can't do the same."

So, again, what is the solution?

I believe the answer is:

d. All of the above.

Now, we just need to get everyone concerned to agree, and to accept the
costs involved. Uh, yeah, right. :-(

Alex

bobbyD wrote:

personally i am not 100% sure bout global warming,,, i know we have
lots
of
pollution,, but the earth shifts its polar axis every so many
hundreds
of
thousands of years etc etc,,, so could this be what is going on,,,

pollution could be the cause of it,,, but what is the truth??

1- are we in a polar shift,,, a part of the ongoing life of a
planet??
2-or did we humans destroy our eco-system and doom this planet>???
"Alex" wrote:
I'm with you, so far, in that I just don't know what to think.

However, I do believe that we have the technology, these days, to
measure the shift in the polar axis. I think if that was the cause,
it
would be easy to point to.

Now, obviously, pollution is bad, there are no two ways about that,
and
I think we should be doing everything we can to reduce it.

The way I see it, either reducing it will help, proving out the
man-made
theory, or it won't, proving the natural cycle theory, and, well,
we're
screwed.

I personally like the cow fart theory, myself. :-)

Just my $.02 (USD, of course, so its *really* not worth much!)

Alex






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT-global warming heatwave
    ... The other issue with it, of course, will be cost to the consumer. ... the consumer will not purchase the car. ... Mass transit is the other option that I believe should receive *much* ... but other areas of the country just seem opposed to it. ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)
  • Re: OT-global warming heatwave
    ... The other issue with it, of course, will be cost to the consumer. ... the consumer will not purchase the car. ... Mass transit is the other option that I believe should receive *much* ... but other areas of the country just seem opposed to it. ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)
  • Re: OT-global warming heatwave
    ... The other issue with it, of course, will be cost to the consumer. ... the consumer will not purchase the car. ... Mass transit is the other option that I believe should receive *much* ... but other areas of the country just seem opposed to it. ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)
  • Re: Peace and the talk needed to establish it, was Re: Kikusui ORC-27A tubed oscilator mods.
    ... circumstances' you think defending one's country 'can' be worthwhile. ... ones the US got involved in and were inconclusive, ie, the Korean war, ... In a democracy the 'choice' is made by vote and you have no more ... Hitler or Tojo came to power. ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
  • Re: "Its just bloody text jousting!"
    ... the country is headed in that direction. ... "When the people fear their government, ... "The only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas ... "Let America realize that self-scrutiny is not treason. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)