Re: Off Topic - "An Inconvenient Truth"


Jordan wrote:
kevinmccabe@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


I agree with you on the merits of a carbon tax. The advantage of doing
it by a fee on the pollution of the common resource (our atmosphere) is
that it lets the power of the market promote creative solutions to the
problem.

Including carbon trading and markets in the same....?


Even electric and hybrid cars don't improve matters if the power to
charge them up comes from a coal or oil plant.

Oil is almost non-existant as a generator of electricity. 'Cept in
Hawaii. The next big thing in carbon are probably:

1) LNG (which will have the same geopolitical instabilities as oil, in
due time)
2) Gassfied Coal (which they will tell us can be sequestered, but won't
be able to pull off)

Coal is the biggest problem because it not only puts CO2 in the
atmosphere but also a lot of really nasty pollutants, including CO and
SO2. Oh, and the emissions are more radioactive than those of any
nuclear plant that isn't actually melting down.

I agree. But, to give credit where its due, the Northeastern forests
are recovering to the point that they are again serving as carbon
sinks. This does argue that there has been success (but not 100%) in
reducing sulphur. This and the success vis-a-vis ozone (Montreal?)
should be looked upon as examples that show we actually can tackle
these problems. On the minus side, if the Gulf Stream reverses, we'll
lose those carbon sinks.


Solar needs to come down by a factor of five. That is in the cards, but
not in time. the real green contender right now is wind. But, it has an
obvious need for a backup.

Solar will become a big player when we bring launch costs down to the
point that we can start seriously deploying solar power satellites.
Until then it's basically an auxiliary power system for home use.

Again, a carbon tax will address that problem. Pretty soon, that
decision won't be left to the U.S. The rest of the world will be
trading carbon dollars and they'll simply tariff U.S. products.

Possibly -- I fear that America might use its influence to prevent this
development. "Fear," because I think it is one thing that could help
to turn the carbon emissions problem around.

I kind of doubt it. What influence we have is likely to fade. Australia
was the only other country (besides Monaco and Lichtenstein) outside of
Kyoto. They are said to be convinced their position must change because
of the devasting effects they're feeling (Water loss, reef bleaching,
loss of agricultural production). Pretty soon, we will be the only ones
not voluntarily subject to the protocols. Some form of international
economic pressure is bound to flow from that. What I fear more would be
'accomodations' between nations with the U.S. in Kyoto. By this I mean
that China probably wants to burn a lot of coal. (Not, that aren't
leading in nuclear, mind, they are, just that their appetite will
likely run to both). I'm cynical enough to see a deal coming.


Mind you, we're in for some more melting icecaps no matter what we do
(within our current capabilities), because there is a tremendous
inherent lag in the atmospheric system's response to changes in gas
inputs. The Earth isn't that easy to steer.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

I agree with most everything you've said Jordan. Not to flog a dead
horse too much, but please recommend this film to people who nod
vaguely about global warming. I didn't start out accepting of nuclear.
I come from a generation whose battle cries were no nukes and save the
whales. Hell, I bought the MUSE double album on vinyl. But, awareness
of the magnitude of the problem is the first step. After that,
reactionary tendencies can be overcome. This is more likely with common
folk than with activists who have already staked out their (anti-nuke)
turf. Really, the key is dialogue that builds consensus. This one is to
important for polemics.

McCabe

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Carbon arc -- now what?
    ... Apparently it used to be quite common to have a carbon-arc ... I have a carbon arc torch somewhere around here that I bought at Montgomery ... The other electrode holder held two ...
    (sci.engr.joining.welding)
  • Re: Carbon-carbon is...?
    ... It's carbon fibres embedded in amorphouscarbon. ... The impregnation and pyrolysis is ... aka furfural alcohol - or perhaps with furfuryl furfurate, ... UK names and give common US names, eg furfuryl alcohol is a UK common name ...
    (sci.space.tech)
  • Re: graphite
    ... It is only a form of carbon. ... common forms. ... It happens to be a crystaline form where the crystals ... As for carbon being harmless, I think the nano-particles found in laser ...
    (rec.music.makers.squeezebox)
  • Re: X-based lifeforms
    ... Silicon is many times more common than carbon.. ... Well, I did, but in retrospect that was a bad thing to do given the ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Carbon Offsets
    ... For instance, the government can give tax credits to reward someone who does reduce pollution, can they not? ... Government incentives are available at many levels, but they have been insufficient to reduce emissions overall. ... I was pondering our conversation last night, and I guess the basic problem I have with carbon offsets is the fact that one person does the "right" thing and reduces his emissions of carbon, and the other person does not do the "right" thing, in the sense that he did not reduce his emissions of carbon, yet he gets credit for doing the "right thing". ... I "could" build a very energy efficient home, if cost was not a factor. ...
    (soc.retirement)