Poll

Climate change is a clear and present danger. We must act quickly and dramatically to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

I agree
19 (79.2%)
I disagree
4 (16.7%)
I don't have an opinion
1 (4.2%)

Total Members Voted: 24

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Copenhagen and climate change

  • 37 replies
  • 8898 views
*

A-Train

  • *
  • 1281
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2009, 09:20:40 PM »
Quote from: Foscolo on December 11, 2009, 01:11:47 PM
...but addressing the issue of climate change has become tagged as the project of the left, so a lot those on the right are against it on principle..

This is true, but "a funny thing has happened on the way to the forum".  The ultra-right, religious conservatives have truly begun to take up the cause of environmentalism on the grounds of "preserving God's creation".  Politics does indeed create strange bedfellows and has done so on this topic...albeit for varying reason.  But none the less, the two opposing political extremes are finding common cause on this one for, fundamentally, similar reasons when you think about it.
Logged
"The young do not know enough to be prudent, and therefore attempt the impossible and achieve it, generation after generation.

Pearl S. Buck
*

kitano

  • *
  • 2601
    • Children of the Atom
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2009, 04:06:33 AM »
i've heard the argument from people on the far left along the lines of climate change being a way to stop the working class from travelling now it's affordable  kkkkkkkkkk
Logged
*

Foscolo

  • *
  • 525
  • Boom boom!
    • ELTpublishing
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2009, 11:47:30 AM »
Quote from: Escaped Lunatic on December 11, 2009, 02:39:31 PM
Nuclear power is one of the fastest ways to deeply cut into CO2 emissions SOx emissions, NOx emissions, etc.

France has 58 nuclear power stations supplying 90% of their electricity. A few two-headed fish and the very occasional meltdown are starting to look quite attractive in comparison with everybody standing knee-deep in melted ice cap.
Logged
Free stuff for teaching English with jokes: ESLjokes.net.
*

BrandeX

  • *
  • 1080
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2009, 02:59:12 PM »
Check out the episode of Penn And Teller Bullshit 5x09 Nukes Hybrids Lesbians (can find a torrent or d/l through google) for an interesting look at how environmentalist groups are blocking the construction of new nuclear power plants in the USA. Essentially it comes down to everyone being innately scared of anything containing the word "nuclear" that high pollutant coal based power plants are preferred by environmentalists.
Logged
*

A-Train

  • *
  • 1281
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2009, 05:19:12 PM »
Quote from: BrandeX on December 12, 2009, 02:59:12 PM
Essentially it comes down to everyone being innately scared of anything containing the word "nuclear" that high pollutant coal based power plants are preferred by environmentalists.

True, but the fear is not unjustified given that Chernobyl and Three Mile Island still loom large in people's memories.  And rightly so.
Logged
"The young do not know enough to be prudent, and therefore attempt the impossible and achieve it, generation after generation.

Pearl S. Buck
*

BrandeX

  • *
  • 1080
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2009, 06:15:50 AM »
Not rightly so.

Check out the vid. if you can find a d/l it explains it more clearly, but 3 mile never "really" happened, and chernobyl was the result of a broken down countries attempt at slap dashing together a nuclear power plant.
Logged
*

Escaped Lunatic

  • *****
  • 10848
  • Finding new ways to conquer the world
    • EscapedLunatic.com
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2009, 12:13:21 PM »
Specifically, a reactor without a containment building, along with someone deciding to do a few "experiments" with a production reactor - complete insanity!

Also, count up the total number of deaths attributed directly or indirectly to Chernobyl (don't forget to add a big ZERO deaths for Three Mile Island), assorted other incidents on nuclear powered vessels, and go ahead and throw in all the deaths from nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki if you are one of the types who lump all things radioactive under the "nuclear = evil and destructive" category.  I'm always amazed at the number of people who think that a properly designed reactor can go up in a multi-megaton mushroom cloud.

Then look at deaths due to coal mining and the pollution caused by coal fired plants. If you really think global warming is about to cause massive weather problems and sea level rise, add in the expected casualties from those too. Sure, modern scrubber technology renders those plants somewhat less harmful, but does anyone here really expect electricity hungry developing nations to spend extra on the best possible pollution controls?  (Yeah, reactor containment buildings cost a few bucks, but it's mostly just lots and lots of low-tech concrete.  A lot cheaper than the best available methods of scrubbing the assorted crud you get from burning coal.)

Nuclear power is FAR from perfect, but it's a good stop gap measure while other things are brought online.  The basic technology had been worked out for decades.  I think of nuclear power for electric generation the same way T. Boone Pickens wants to convert most cars to run on natural gas.  His idea is those pollute less and give us a bit more time to hammer out the remaining issues with hydrogen fuel, fuel cells, or all electric cars.
Logged
I'm pro-cloning and we vote!               Why isn't this card colored green?
EscapedLunatic.com
*

Con ate dog

  • *****
  • 5073
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2009, 04:25:59 AM »
Solar power will be the final answer: clean, inexhaustible.
Logged
And there is no liar like the indignant man... -Nietszche

Nothing is so fatiguing as the eternal hanging on of an uncompleted task. -William James

englishmoose.com
*

Foscolo

  • *
  • 525
  • Boom boom!
    • ELTpublishing
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2009, 10:12:57 AM »
Quote from: Con ate dog on December 14, 2009, 04:25:59 AM
Solar power will be the final answer: clean, inexhaustible.

...and expensive. Bizarrely, investing in cheap clean power seems to be a low priority in comparison with bailing out failed banks and invading countries where copious facial hair is fashionable.
Logged
Free stuff for teaching English with jokes: ESLjokes.net.
*

A-Train

  • *
  • 1281
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2009, 04:59:08 AM »
I'm definately for increasing nuclear power, but I don't think that it's unjustified to be fearful of it.  Three Mile Island was close to killing thousands and the private company that ran it was less than forthcoming about the severity of the problem to say the least.  It seems like conservation, at least in much of the U.S., could quickly save the equivalent of the energy produced by dozens if not hundreds of nuclear power plants.
Logged
"The young do not know enough to be prudent, and therefore attempt the impossible and achieve it, generation after generation.

Pearl S. Buck
*

Lotus Eater

  • 7671
  • buk-buk..b'kaaaawww!
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2009, 05:33:14 AM »
China currently has 11 nuclear reactors, with 22 more expected to be finished by 2010 and another 132 after that - finishing by 2020.  So China is seriously using these as energy sources.

BUT...there are MANY 'incidents' in nuclear power plants and Germany is phasing out plants - all planned to be gone by 2021.
Quote
Germany's nuclear power plants reported 944 incidents between the period of early 2000 and late 2006, according to statistics released by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS).

Meanwhile, the number of registered breakdowns in German nuclear power plants since 1993 stand at 1,945.

The latest figures point to the high number of incidents in especially older nuclear power plants.

One-third of German atomic reactors are reportedly shut down because of either technical problems, repair work or system check-ups.

Most incidents can be contained, but the possibility of a major disaster affecting hundreds of thousands of people does exist.

Aging nuclear power plants pose some of the greatest risks, and nuclear power plants in developing countries run the risk of somewhat lax building controls (want to live next to a Chinese one, given the quality of buildings you see being constructed on a daily basis???).  Same would go for India and other countries wanting to build.  If a country with the "precision engineering"  reputation of Germany has this level of problem, then .... :wtf:
Logged
*

Escaped Lunatic

  • *****
  • 10848
  • Finding new ways to conquer the world
    • EscapedLunatic.com
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2009, 03:28:49 PM »
Of course, those "clean-energy" solar panels aren't quite so clean to manufacture.

A large number of energy choices are "name your poison" choices.
Logged
I'm pro-cloning and we vote!               Why isn't this card colored green?
EscapedLunatic.com
*

Lotus Eater

  • 7671
  • buk-buk..b'kaaaawww!
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2009, 03:52:23 PM »
Agree with that one!  Which brings us back to decreasing our consumption.  Simple things (and let's not even bother with the 'turn the lights off, turn the taps off' stuff!) make big differences.

Coffee - 6 cups of INSTANT coffee per day (not a big amount for dedicated coffee drinkers) = 175 kilograms of CO2 per year - the same carbon footprint as a flight between Rome and London.  One cup of black filter coffee is responsible for 125gms of CO2 - add milk and sugar... increases dramatically.

Emissions attributable to TV use in the US - 30 million tonnes per year. And of course the BIG flat screens are really bad - one big screen can cause close to a tonne of emissions each year.

Food waste - US households throw away $48 BILLION of food each year - about 30% of their food.  Europe pretty similar, UK tosses out 6.7 million tonnes of food.  The CO2 cost of this in the UK is 15 million tonnes.  I hate to think of the amount in China - the waste after a banquet is enormous.  Add to this the cost of transporting, storing, packing all of the food that becomes landfill, and the greenhouse cost of producing that food and again the rise in gas emission is enormous.  40,200 tonnes of milk in the UK goes down the drain - after it cost 40,000tonnes of CO2 to create.

Washing clothes we've only worn once or twice adds another big chunk to the emissions.  Buying new clothes and tossing out our old ones... less than 1/4 of our old clothes are re-cycled.




Given the amount of tea I drink, I don't want to investigate that!! kkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkk ananananan ananananan aoaoaoaoao aoaoaoaoao
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 04:03:07 PM by Lotus Eater »
Logged
*

Escaped Lunatic

  • *****
  • 10848
  • Finding new ways to conquer the world
    • EscapedLunatic.com
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2009, 04:13:18 PM »
Conservation and efficiency are both important, but even if all the developed countries cut all resource consumption by 50%, there's the small matter of the rest of the world's demands growing faster than we could cut.  llllllllll

We need massive increases in electrical power production for the world.  Life will be interesting in the next few decades.
Logged
I'm pro-cloning and we vote!               Why isn't this card colored green?
EscapedLunatic.com
*

Lotus Eater

  • 7671
  • buk-buk..b'kaaaawww!
Re: Copenhagen and climate change
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2009, 04:31:09 PM »
I think across the board we have to decide that quality of life is no longer about 'things'.  Saying that the people in developing countries cannot have what we enjoy today is an anathema, but for everyone the standard of living has to decrease to a sustainable level.

The biggest problem will be to convince us - the people from developed countries - that simpler is better, that we don't need every technological advance, that smaller is better etc.  Without that change occurring, there is no way we can credibly suggest that progress (ie consumption) in developing countries slows. The aspirational in all of us drives so much of this gas emission.

I wish I could remember the name and author of a science fiction book I read once, that reversed the 'aspirational'.  The wealthiest people were those that could live the simple life - wear old clothes, eat small amounts, not have to buy new things.  The poorest had to eat, eat, eat, consume, consume, consume, buy, buy, buy to ensure that the economy was maintained.  Now we need to convince the wealthiest and the poorest that consumption beyond the simplest needs is 'evil'.  And good luck with that!   ahahahahah ahahahahah ahahahahah

Our lives are way too comfortable to want to give up much in them.  Those individuals and companies who are willing to make substantial changes are too few to have a real impact.


Which takes us back to the necessity for DRAMATIC measures to be externally imposed.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 05:17:52 PM by Lotus Eater »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »