Acidus wrote:

Excellent interview of Bush on a variety of topics. Lots of the same old same old on Iraq: "I never had doubts" blah blah lbah. I wonder how many sons and daughters of the US have to die before doubts do begin.

His position in farm subsidies surprised me, especially after his stand on Steel tariffs.

I was most interested in his energy policy. My favorite quote?

BUSH: I believe we're going to be able to have coal-fired plants that have zero emissions.

[waits for Janelane, resident energy chick...]

Finding cleaner energy sources and population control is the solution to global warming (assuming that the human influence in the equation is correct). The causes of global warming are not well understood... 98% of greenhouse gases are not produced by man and even though there is an apparent correlation to the human consumption of fossil fuels, 70% of the warming happened 10 years before the industrial boom. Also there is a similar correlation between sun cycles and global warming, but this has yet to be proven as a cause as well.

Legislation at this point would drive energy prices to INSANE, and they're already through the roof. Doing so might also have little impact on the effect of global warming since the cause is only suspected. We are likely within decades of finding an energy solution, I'm willing to bet that there is a higher chance of that having a positive effect than the chance of the world melting within that same time. Wrecking the economy for a ritual karmatic solution is silly.

Honestly, terratogen, you should really list your sources. At a minimum, we could use them to contrast with the ones I found below.

Finding cleaner energy sources and population control is the solution to global warming (assuming that the human influence in the equation is correct).

No energy source is entirely clean. It still takes fossil fuels to extract materials, manufacture, and transport. "Cleaner" is certainly the operative word, however it is a source of much contention. How clean is clean? Can you answer it? Can anyone? If we convert all cars to hydrogen-powered without a better way to generate the hydrogen than electrolysis in water, we'd produce 10 times the pollution we do now with our paltry gasoline fleet.* If this hydrogen comes from greener electricity, where does all this electricity come from? What has the capacity to power both our homes and cars? How do we manage the massive influx of water, the most influential greenhouse gas (an apparent, if not legal, "pollutant")? Its a infrastructure dilema; the electric grid is currently uni-directional. But changing that, of course, takes time and money.

The causes of global warming are not well understood... 98% of greenhouse gases are not produced by man and even though there is an apparent correlation to the human consumption of fossil fuels...

According to this EIA report, 95% of carbon dioxide is produced naturally. However, reports indicate that the update of CO2 by the environment is lagging production which means a net increase over time. It indicates that increasing water vapor emissions wouldn't affect the greenhouse effect, but does this include to a massive influx as in the "hydrogen solution" scenario above? Who can possibly know until we try?

...70% of the warming happened 10 years before the industrial boom. Also there is a similar correlation between sun cycles and global warming, but this has yet to be proven as a cause as well.

Actually, Wikipedia puts the industrial revolution[s] between the middle 18th and early 19th centuries. Coincidentally, that's right before the global average temperature starting to increase in 1920. Some people agree that the globe was here trillions of years before us and will survive long after we're gone...in the meantime, wouldn't it be nice to keep some of the flora and fauna we're used to alive? We've already decided that the hole in the ozone layer (and associated CFCs) are intolerable; why not carbon dioxide?

Legislation at this point would drive energy prices to INSANE, and they're already through the roof. Doing so might also have little impact on the effect of global warmin... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

janelane wrote:
Honestly, terratogen, you should really list your resources. At a minimum, we could use them to contrast with the ones I found below.

Google any of the ones your concerned with, I'm sure you will find several. The difference between the 95% and 98% Is how water vapor is accounted for.

"Cleaner" is certainly the operative word, however it is a source of much contention. How clean is clean? Can you answer it? Can anyone?

Good questions. So is whether or not these pollutants are causes and not merely correlations. Curbing consumption might by time, but how much time do we need before a technological answer is found? Can you answer that? Maybe we should all live like the amish until we can stand the heat. I don't think this is a practical solution.

The causes of global warming are not well understood... 98% of greenhouse gases are not produced by man and even though there is an apparent correlation to the human consumption of fossil fuels...

According to this EIA report, 95% of carbon dioxide is produced naturally. However, reports indicate that the update of CO2 by the environment is lagging production which means a net increase over time. It indicates that increasing water vapor emissions wouldn't affect the greenhouse effect, but does this include to a massive influx as in the "hydrogen solution" scenario above? Who can possibly know until we try?

That's right... We don't know! Like I said above, the causes of greenhouse warming are not well understood. Therefore we can not solve the problem with any reliability in any way. Panicking and destroying the economy might not fix the environment. Especially if your answer is a band-aid.

...70% of the warming happened 10 years before the industrial boom. Also there is a similar correlation between sun cycles and global warming, but this has yet to be proven as a cause as well.

Actually, Wikipedia puts the industrial revolution[s] between the middle 18th and early 19th centuries. Coincidentally, that's right before the global average temperature starting to increase in 1920. Some people agree that the globe was here trillions of years before us and will survive long after we're gone...in the meantime, wouldn't it be nice to keep some of the flora and fauna we're used to alive? We've already decided that the hole in the ozone layer (and associated CFCs) are intolerable; why not carbon dioxide?

The Temp. increase started in 1920, but the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes spiked around 1940.

I can see your on... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Consumption is not proven as a cause. Maybe you're crystal ball is different from mine. Slowing consumption might not have a significant impact. Even if a technological solution is over a century away, that is the most practical solution.

[ I recognize that the tangent of this thread is on climate change, specifically, but I don't think it makes sense to have a discussion on energy policy that doesn't take the geopolitical issues into account as well. The truth is that reducing our consumption of oil makes enough sense in that context that it's a good idea, even if the environmental impact is zero, or negligible.

Janelane notes that water is an effective greenhouse gas, and that nuclear, as well as hydrogen, technologies generate a lot of it. Would the net impact be more or less than sticking with oil? As you both say, we don't know. We do have a pretty good idea of all the political implications of oil dependence, and I see that as a more compelling argument to work on alternatives than the unknown environmental impacts. The unknown is irrelevant. By all means, study it, try to make it known, so we can add to our decision making capacity, but in the meantime, the analysis can be made with those things that are known.

For one, climate change isn't the only environmental issue at stake. If all the water causes a bit more global warming, but there's 99% less carcinogens and asthma-inducing particulates in the air i'm breathing, maybe it's worth it. The problem with any discussion like this is seeing the big picture without getting lost.

I think we have the ability to modify our energy infrastructure in this country, make it two way, more efficient, etc, and I think we should try to do that, but it's a lot like a human : you can work out 4 hours a day, but if all you eat is cheeseburgers, you're not doing yourself any favors. I'm saying that new technology, like working out, is only one part of the solution, and that reducing consumption is a valuable, if not necessary, process to engage in anyway.

-k ]

Acidus wrote:

PRESIDENT BUSH: ... I know we need more nuclear power in order - nuclear power, after all, is not dependent on fossil fuels and emits no greenhouse gases.

Which would be a very great position if the statement weren't entirely false. The president's complete ignorance has come full circle in this article.

Not only does nuclear emit the most important greenhouse gas (water), but it can take 10-15 years to build a plant. And right now, every construction project (perhaps excepting this one) requires fossil fuel-powered vehicles. While plans for modular light-water reactors are underway, the technological fix is still years (if not decades) in the future. Not to mention the massive volume of waste that is generated that will, eventually, have to be relocated off-site. Technologies that convert the radioactive waste may never come to fruition; we have, afterall, been trying since the sixties. Instead of taking a proactive stance NOW to reduce consumption (which would apparently cause irreversible economic hardship, plunging the nation into a Dark Age), Bush would prefer to just throw money at the problem. He's heedless of the fact that these technologies are a long time if not infinitely far away and that mitigating future fossil fuel consumption starts today.

This article is just another indicator of Bush's goddamn obstinance. He is incapable of touting anything other than amorphous promises produced from unsubstantiated claims. Hurt the economy...give me a frickin' break. Companies aren't going to suddenly fold because 10% of the energy produced in this country has to start coming from renewable energy.

-janelane, intelligently