Global Sustainability

Post Reply New Topic

I am Quaker, and I quake. Of course it could just be those Northern California ground faults...

I am glad I don't have to define my attempts at humor anymore, people are finally recognizing them and wisely avoiding them.

Thanks for the links. Just for clarification, I do believe that some action does need to be taken, but I also believe that it needs to be a gradual, market-driven process.

You do of course realize that it is not North America but China that has the world's greatest demand for fossil fuels in addition to having the dubious distinction of being the worst offender when it comes to pollution, correct?



Thank you for conceding that electric cars aren't going to become a viable solution any time soon. Insofar as improving energy efficiency, I think our best bet right now would be turbodiesel vehicles. They're very efficient, waste only ~50% of their potential energy as heat compared to the ~70%+ of gasoline engines, have a longer lifespan (less consumption of or demand for raw or recycled materials), and biodiesel blends can eclipse the current Ethanol blends. National Geographic featured an interesting article on alternative fuels a while back which explained why Ethanol is a poor substitute for gasoline.

As for a "carbon tax," that's the worst possible thing you could do to incentivize the use of alternative fuels. It will do nothing to make the associated technology more affordable, and would be disastrous during a time where many people in the United States are still finding it difficult to obtain credit and have only enough purchasing power to maintain a minimal to modest quality of life for themselves and their families.



If memory serves correctly, Boeing has made great strides in technology in the form of more efficient jet engines. It's a step in the right direction, but when you're seeking the ultimate goal of eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels entirely, these measures can only mitigate the problem so much. In truth, it's going to be very difficult to completely replace fossil fuels as a source of energy for commerce and industry.



Why should the rest of the world have to pick up the slack for China's lackadaisical attitude towards emissions? Why are we focusing so much effort on reducing them in North America when we should be directing our attention towards the worst offender who comsumes mort fossil fuels than any other nation in the world? You can only do so much when the world's largest polluter is doing little to nothing to curb their impact on the enviornment.



It's not as easy as it sounds, especially when you consider that petroleum is used for more than just driving ourselves around. There should be a global effort to reduce our dependence upon it in the interests of having a sustainable global economy, but mandates and taxes are not the way to go about it.

In regards to Sweden, citation please?

Ethanol makes good performance fuel, that's about it.

Diesel is a wonderful thing in any form. Better around town (TORQUE. By the ton!), much more fuel efficient, and they are hard as hell to kill.

Being reminded of this really, REALLY makes me wish we had more TDI options here in the US aside from special-order Vee Dubs, unobtainable Mercedes-Benzes, and big honkin' dually trucks.

I see diesel cars for sale all the time, not just on special order.

A decent shape used diesel VW can be had for anywhere from 1000-5000 here in Canada, if you know how to do basic car repairs you can easily pick one up for 800.

Also, if you do get a diesel, GET A STICK SHIFT. More fuel economy, more power, cheaper and easier to fix.

A couple of mostly-unrelated observations:

-Nuclear power: It is, IMHO, the closest thing we have to a silver bullet for our energy problems (whether you think of the problem as "moar power, moar I say" or "the environment, OMG").

-Natural gas: I am not familiar with all the details, but the U.S. apparently has a rather large supply, and it burns cleaner than gasoline.

-Wind and solar: They're nice and clean, but just don't scale well enough to have a large impact.

And last but not least: You can't optimize a system by focusing on parts of it that are small. Where do we spend the most fuel? This is where our attention should be focused. If we spend 5 times as much fuel on coal power plants than in cars, then making cars 50 times as efficient will do less than making power plants 1/3 more efficient.

To save space I'm combining some of your points. I'll get to the China one in a bit.

The OECD would disagree with your statement regarding carbon taxes:

Source: [/quote]Canada OECD Info

I also referenced the point about the extra cost to families. That would be offset by reducing income tax, sales tax, and other government fees. In the proposal for one in Canada it would be revenue neutral. You can find a link to the proposal here: Green Tax Shift.

As for failing to make the technology cheaper, I find that doubtful. As it stands now there are very few who can afford the cleaner technologies, so there isn't much of a market for them to compete on and lower prices. With a carbon tax, suddenly everyone would find it better to start buying the cleaner technology, creating more competition. This would create incentives to the technology to be developed and the price to drop.


Well, to start with, China is starting to show some commitment to cutting emissions--or at least slowing their growth. I think that was referenced in the New Scientist article I linked to. If not then I can try to dig up another citation. But more importantly, this isn't a matter of who should go first. This is a matter of global survival. Although I'd like to see China doing much more to cut emissions, there isn't much I can do about the fact that they aren't. So if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change (a term used by scientists--I'm not being alarmist) we're going to have to step up. Fairness has nothing to do with it--it is necessary that we cut our emissions. Also, China has stated that it will be more willing to start cutting its emissions once other countries step up to the plate. So we'd better step up.

If there was a way to make China cut its emissions, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, the only one I can think of is trade sanctions. And we are all so dependant on China for cheap consumer products that that seems difficult. Not to mention that there might be a World Trade Organization challenge to that sort of policy.


Then how do you propose going about it in a manner that will be effective in the next 10 years?

As for Sweden, here's a link to a graph of GDP and CO2 emissions: Sweden DGP and CO2. Unfortunately it only goes to 2005. For more complete graphs of GDP, you can go to Sweden GDP to 2012. For the UN assesment of Sweden's accomplishments as of 2011, you can find the data in this document on page 15 (as numbered by Adobe): National Progress on CO2 Emissions.

I am very pessemistic about the future of the world. And I think our stupid businesses and politicians are too short sighted to know what it means.

Or perhaps they have some strategy worked out to kill off lots of people. But from their point of view it is catch 22. The higher the population the richer and more powerful they will be, but that will destroy the world. So to save the world they will have to reduce population which will make them less rich and less powerful. I think they love power too much to save the world.

Whatever our excesses in due course nature will take care of the matter. The underlying regularities and laws of nature cannot be avoided, gotten around or evaded.

In the very long run, the planet is doomed, no matter what we do or do not do.

ruveyn

The civilization upon the planet's surface is doomed. The planet will be just fine...

Conservatism can be summed up as "Saying one thing, but doing another"

In the very, very, very long run, the planet is also doomed. Stars die.

The planet can file a restraining order against the star.

EDIT: I have been informed restraining orders are not served against stars. Conflict of interest or something.

Last edited by shrox on 08 Apr 2012, 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But we might as well make things last a few more millennia.

Once the sun uses up its hydrogen the planet will not be just fine. The Sun will become much hotter when it starts to fuse helium into carbon, the oceans will boil away. In the end game the sun will become a red giant and most likely the earth will be vaporized.

Mother Sun will end up eating some of her children.

ruveyn

From the looks of things and with constant depletion of natural resources man kind will eventually wipe itself out. Although the land will be polluted etc nature has its ways of adapting and moving on. New organisms will emerge and new strains of bacterium and viruses as well. As millions of years pass on by new animals will emerge and the continents will continue to shift into warming and ice age periods. This will happen for a few billion years until the sun dies out then that will be the end of all utter existence of life and the planet itself at least for earth.