“Oh, so you are now all claiming that If I reduce my energy consumption, that will reduce global warming.”
That’s the basic idea, yes. The prevailing wisdom is that the combustion of fossil fuels for energy over the last 150 years is the cause of global warming. Therefore, reducing combustion through efficiency is thought to provide some assistance, or at least not make it worse.
On the attack on Gore, I have no idea why that is directed at me. I’ve never tried to support him here, just provide a discussion point. If you want me to explain his actions you’ve gone off your rocker.
I am curious about the people who decry buying carbon offsets. It seems like a great way to get the market going to me. Maintain economic growth while providing an incentive to develop carbon neutral energy resources. As an example, here in NC I can buy into a green power program that provides for reduced emissions of methane and carbon. Now, the electrons that actually come into my home may not be the ones created by a wind turbine or some other resources. They may come from the coal plant, or even the nuclear one down the road. But I paid for “cleaner” energy to be put on the grid, that will be used by someone (maybe me, maybe someone else).
Is it more important that I put up my own wind turbine and use self-generated power, or should I be allowed to spend money to ensure that my equivalent energy usage is being put on the electric grid?
Or do we just want to bash Al because we don’t like what he says? Sounds like what those “liberals” are always being accused of doing to dubya.
But in Al’s movie he had 2 graphs, one showing the increase in global temperature’s and one the increase in human population. They appeared HIGHLY correlated to me. I think that fact the human race is growing so fast is as much if not more to do with it then my individual energy consumption.
As pointed out Methane is a major GHG, and its major contributor is cow’s. I think eating less meat would have a bigger impact.
Alas since no one wants to talk about solutions, we really don’t know what will have a bigger impact. Hey maybe I should put mirrors on my roof, to reflect more of the suns light back into space, What if all roofs went to some form of high reflective material, I bet that would help a lot? Why is no one promoting that idea?
Lets build really big GHG scrubbers, launch them up into the atmosphere, then when they are full luanch them into the sun?
I am sure there are thousands of other ways to solve this problem without having to get into the arguement of weather or not the amount of GHG man produces is the factor.
**But in Al’s movie he had 2 graphs, one showing the increase in global temperature’s and one the increase in human population. They appeared HIGHLY correlated to me. I think that fact the human race is growing so fast is as much if not more to do with it then my individual energy consumption. **
I guess his point is to offset the increase in population, individuals have to consume less to keep the total from getting out of hand.
I haven’t bothered to see Gore’s movie, but I take your word for it on the graph. Yes, population has grown, as well as energy consumption. The breakthroughs in energy and transportation have been significant causes of the population boom. As I mentioned, though, with draconian measures, California has been able to stabilize their per capita energy consumption. But with population growth, even keeping per capita usage equal, we still have rapidly growing demands for energy.
Methane is an ideal GHG. It is 17-20 times more effective than CO2. However, methane only accounts for about 1% or less of emissions. So the math tells us to go after CO2 first.
“Alas since no one wants to talk about solutions, we really don’t know what will have a bigger impact.”
I don’t know why people keep saying that. There are tons of ways to reduce emissions, if you’re willing to invest the time and effort.
“What if all roofs went to some form of high reflective material, I bet that would help a lot? Why is no one promoting that idea?”
Actually, that is law in some metro areas. Not to reflect heat back to space, but to keep your home or office from collecting the heat. In the south here, a black roof will cause the attic and house to use more energy than a lighter colored roof. The benefit is that ratepayers are not required to pay for the construction of new power plants, thus keeping rates lower.
“Hey maybe I should put mirrors on my roof, to reflect more of the suns light back into space, What if all roofs went to some form of high reflective material, I bet that would help a lot? Why is no one promoting that idea?”
I have floated the idea of floating mirrors in the ocean in this forum with the same objective. No one is interested in doing that, because the real interest is not in solving the problem. The interest is in creating public awareness of a problem that can be manipulated for desired political ends.
Nobody gets elected by saying we need mirrors on our roofs. You get elected by creating bad guys that you can attack. This is not complicated.
Now we have Sen. Rockerfeller attacking the oil industry for global warming. Isn’t that rich, in more ways than one?
it’s not that the alternative is doing absolutely nothing.
and perhaps we may have hope with some kind of crazy, high tech, pie in the sky approach like using millions of mirrors to reflect heat, or maybe nuclear weapons to project tons of dust high into the stratosphere to create micro ‘nuclear winters’. but these type of solutions will be long shots.
it is just that if you review all the traditional efficiency, conservation, and lifestyle solutions, and review what their effects are, and then you examine what we must do to put them into action, you quickly realize, given human nature is what it is, that there is about a snowball’s chance in hell that people will actually do them. see the book i listed for a very good and detailed examination of the potential GW ‘solutions’. it is a very steep uphill battle.
it is a little like saying, starting today we are going to combat all obesity-related diseases in the usa by putting everyone that needs to lose weight on a diet until they get down to a healthy and slender weight. the physics says, yes, it’s possible. but you and i know that a solution like that will never actually be put into action by millions of individuals.
and i have no interest in ‘doing nothing’. and it doesn’t mean that i do nothing. i don’t believe that i have to have an affect to do something. i just have to believe that i am doing the right thing, even if i think it has little effect in the big picture.
i just don’t happen to think that humanity has any chance of beating this train. we are done …
My point is that there is no discussion of low tech approaches to “solving” global warming that don’t involve attacking bad guys and bad things. These attacks are typically spearheaded by politicians, presumably as a vehicle to get elected.
So, when the article comes out about how decreased particulate pollution is bad news for global warming, that gets kicked off to the side. Ditto for nuclear power and other obvious approaches. Air pollution and nuclear power are politically “bad” so studies won’t get funded.
The percentage of the sun’s energy that needs to shielded from the Earth in order to have significant impacts is tiny in percentage terms. That doesn’t make it tiny to do, but I really marvel at how discussion there gets shut down.
If what is needed is less CO2, how about building some giant scrubbers. They used to be called forests. How hard can it be to grow some big mother forests in areas that are now without trees? I have yet to see a discussion of techniques to do this or what varieties of trees would be most efficient. If the Earth actually does warm, it is pretty clear to me that mother nature will do this herself anyway, and you now have the negative feedback loop which must exist or the Earth would have turned into either Mars or Venus long ago.
Sorry the libraries closed right now, so why cant we put a whole bunch of mirrors on the poles to reflect the sunlight back up instead of it being absorbed into the water?
yes, theoretically, we could do that. would it have an effect? my guess is, yes, it will. but the real question is, will anyone try it?
if you don’t like al gore (and i am not a big fan of him either), find the book i suggested (i got mine from the library too). the author will show you independently verifiable facts that will make your jaw drop to the floor. and you will discover that our situation is vastly more dire than al gore presents in his movie. i guarantee it.
Why do I never see a discussion about, say, what amount of irrigation and what species of tree could be grown in the South West US? What approach would yield the greatest carbon sequestration per acre and per invested energy?
Such topics are taboo, since they don’t fit a political agenda. There is no bad guy to allow a politician or do gooder to set himself apart as a good guy. It would be like a James Bond movie without a villian. Who would he roll in the hay with? Mollypenny?
I can’t even get a straight answer about what trees I could best grow on my property, and I am not even asking anyone to pay for it. Well, not seriously asking anyway.
Why do I never see a discussion about, say, what amount of irrigation and what species of tree could be grown in the South West US?
I’ll climb out on that limb and suggest that it’s because areas in which there are no natural forests- like much of the American Southwest- are not well suited to growing large numbers of trees.
And while I have to admit that I’ve not heard many proposals to grow a forest in the Mojave Desert as a means of fighting GW, I have for years heard pleas to stop deforesting the massive carbon sinks that already exist- the Amazon rainforest, for example. And surely you’ve heard some eco-nut exhorting you to plant a tree, right? It’s not as if people don’t promote that, or act on it.
As for what trees would be best for your property, I’ll climb out on that limb, too- plant trees that grow well in your area. What’s complicated?
I agree with the deforestation stuff. Real tragedy. Just because nature doesn’t grow trees by itself well, doesn’t mean that a little assistance from man in some areas would not turn the tables. I have yet to see a discussion of the tradeoffs involved.
You are saying that there is no difference in carbon sequestration among different types of trees? Hard to believe. A large variety of trees grow well, from oaks to pines. I am guessing oaks would be better long term, but that is a total guess. Again, never a discussion.
You are saying that there is no difference in carbon sequestration among different types of trees?
No, I’m saying that it doesn’t matter how well a tree sequesters carbon if it won’t grow in Florida.
A large variety of trees grow well, from oaks to pines.
Well, OK, then. I’d suggest getting in touch with your local extension office. Bet they’d be able to help. I really have no idea if there’s much of a difference between tree species. Though I guess you’d also have to take into account the time it takes for a tree to mature- wouldn’t be surprised to learn that a pine planted today sequesters more carbon over the next 10 or 15 years than an oak planted at the same time. But that’s pure guess.
I would make the same guess, but that is exactly what it is. A guess.
I haven’t and won’t see an intelligent discussion of it, since it won’t further anyone’s political agenda. The greatest depth of the discussion will be planting tree, good. Cutting trees, bad. That discussion creates good guys and bad guys, so you will hear that all day.
…
if you don’t like al gore (and i am not a big fan of him either), find the book i suggested (i got mine from the library too). the author will show you independently verifiable facts that will make your jaw drop to the floor. and you will discover that our situation is vastly more dire than al gore presents in his movie. i guarantee it.
Actually I have never met Al Gore and don’t really know the man. I lie most people in this discussion agree G.W. is happening, the thing I have against his movie is it did not present solutions?
Does this book, if not I won’t waste my time. If G.W. is VASTLY more dire than Al’s movie presents, which my take was it was pretty bad. Then thats even more cause for concern, and even less hope that my reducing my energy consumptions, but not my beef intact is not really going to solve anything.
Hell My A.C. only comes on when it hits 90 for multiple days in a row, my furnace is set at 67, I have extra insulation in my ceiling and walls, and all of this was done 15 yrs ago, not because of G.W.
I would make the same guess, but that is exactly what it is. A guess.
I haven’t and won’t see an intelligent discussion of it, since it won’t further anyone’s political agenda. The greatest depth of the discussion will be planting tree, good. Cutting trees, bad. That discussion creates good guys and bad guys, so you will hear that all day.
But are two small growing trees, better scrubbers than 1 big tree? would we be better off cutting old mature trees, and planting 2 smaller ones to grow and remove more carbon?
I haven’t and won’t see an intelligent discussion of it, since it won’t further anyone’s political agenda.
I really think it’s more because the decision about which type of tree to plant is a local issue. I’m sure you can find the info locally. That said, I AM confident that it’s better, from a global warming perspective, to plant any tree that will grow, than to cut down a tree.
If I was trying to figure out what kind of trees to plant, I think I’d just pick some that would grow well without a lot of extra watering, and that I like to look at. I wouldn’t stress all that much over whether or not some other tree would sink more carbon. I just don’t think the difference would be that big.