Consolidated Climate Change/CO2/Global Warming Thread

[RnR]

Originally Posted by Goth

True, but there's only a relatively small dent you can make in this fashion.

Maybe. Maybe not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Watt_Society

I haven't read enough on this yet to do it justice. So not sure if there is anything to it. But it sounds pretty cool Have to hit the links on the weekend.

[Ravenclaw]

Originally Posted by Atti

politicians and white colar jerks cares more about this $

better living in a world that tries to optimize wealth than a world that tries to optimize energy deprivation.

[Dr feelgood]

Originally Posted by Atti

i am sure of it domestic consumsion of energy contribute less then 5 % of total co2 that is put out by industrial and commercial.. soo changing ur light globe doesnt do jack in my opinion... how about stop selling old technology and invest in LED lights for everything or cleaner coal burning technology... oh wont happen until there is money to be made... oh wait... if we can burn coal cleaner and more effiecient we wont be able to sell as much coal to overseas ... JOHNY SAYS we'll delay it for another few decades and play it by ear...
politicians and white colar jerks cares more about this $ then this .|.

Not sure what your getting at there, but changing Australias energy consumption, either comercial or domestic, will have a negilable effect on global warming. Whilst CO2 does contirbute to climate change, sending Australia back into 3rd world (or worse) for the sake of pacifying some misinformed greenies is a bad idea for both the environment and our standard of living.

[kingbob86]

Climate change seems to be a very prickly topic at the moment. I've read a lot of information on the subject, and I'm no expert, but I believe that without our emissions global warming would still occur. However, I also believe that we have accelerated the natural speed of the temperature increase which has left a lot less time for the ecological systems to adapt to the new environmental conditions and as such is causing a lot of the problems.

[Atti]

i agreed with above statement.

what i was trying to get at is a political view on the environment.

[Dr feelgood]

Originally Posted by Atti

i agreed with above statement.

what i was trying to get at is a political view on the environment.

in a science thread? I guess theres more to science than test tubes

[Atti]

theres science behind politics too.

[Draffa]

Originally Posted by Ravenclaw

Energy efficiency is overhyped. Some of the people on this board seem to live in a fantasy land where $1 spent on energy efficiency will always produce more than $1 of value. Energy efficiency has no more value than what the market assigns to it. Government mandated efficiency goals are to the detriment of the public good.

You really do make some stupid posts, you know that, don't you?

Originally Posted by Ravenclaw

better living in a world that tries to optimize wealth than a world that tries to optimize energy deprivation.

Yeah, because you can eat dollar coins.

[RnR]

Originally Posted by kingbob86

I believe that without our emissions global warming would still occur.

In the latest report from the IPCC they show that without our emissions we would have had a slight cooling.

There is a nice graph on page 11 at http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

[Ravenclaw]

Originally Posted by Draffa

You really do make some stupid posts, you know that, don't you?

are you saying we should have government mandated energy targets. why?

Yeah, because you can eat dollar coins.

the first thing that comes into your mind when i talk about increasing wealth is coining money

i think you have been exposed to too much leftist economics

"just print more money, she be right"

[toe2toe]

Why do you think energy efficiency is over-hyped? Think of it like this, you spend $1 making something 10% more efficient and if there are millions of this something out there 10% saving on energy costs for it will save a lot more than $1 worth of energy. Or are you talking about something else?

[Ravenclaw]

Originally Posted by toe2toe

Why do you think energy efficiency is over-hyped?

toe:

these opportunities are already pursued in the marketplace. i'm skeptical of energy efficiencies mandated by government because I think that if energy savings were economical then they would already be pursued.

some people in this forum believe there is some value to energy savings that the market doesn't account for, but they haven't been able to express it yet.

[toe2toe]

Originally Posted by Ravenclaw

toe:

these opportunities are already pursued in the marketplace. i'm skeptical of energy efficiencies mandated by government because I think that if energy savings were economical then they would already be pursued.

some people in this forum believe there is some value to energy savings that the market doesn't account for, but they haven't been able to express it yet.

I see what you're getting at, basically saying if it made financial sense for a manufacturer to use more efficient parts they would right? Still, how much it costs a manufacturer to make something and how much it costs someone to run it afterwards are two different things. i.e. it will end up more expensive for the manufacturer to make something if they have to use a more expensive, more efficient part or do research to improve the product. But, if it is cheaper for the consumer to run because of this then overall the product is cheaper to build and run. The extra manufacturing cost has to come from somewhere though, either the product goes up in price or doesn't go down in price like it otherwise might have. Or the government could somehow subsidise efficiency improvement schemes. This is where a government mandate would help, forcing manufacturers to meet efficiency standards.

Another idea would be for all products to start requiring efficiency or power usage ratings listed on them like white goods (fridges, driers etc) already do. That way a consumer can look at two competing products and make an informed decision about which one will use less power in the long run. Maybe have an estimated cost of running the thing for 5 or 10 years or something. I know I would pay more for something that was more efficient and would end up costing less in the long run. Having these sorts of measures in place would also help to force manufacturers to make their products more efficient if people start purchasing the more efficient products over less efficient ones.

[Dr feelgood]

Originally Posted by toe2toe

... manufactures.... efficient.... government mandate..... government could somehow subsidise.... etc. etc....

I do think manufacturers are designing and producing more efficient goods, but when we start talking about government subsidies and mandates people tend start thinking "money for nothing". Like in many debates people tend to think of the government as a never ending supply of cash that can solve whatever particular problem it is at the time. Government subsidies come out of the pockets of you and me, therefore if the government subsidised clean energy and mandated only certain effieciency products could be used, then you and I would be enjoying a healthy environment and climate from the gutter with empty stomachs.

[yanman]

great article on New Scientist regarding the most common myths around climate change. I'm not going to put the links in for all 26, just click on the NS link to get to them on their page

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

17:00 16 May 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Michael Le Page

Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.

Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.

With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.

So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.

• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

• We can't do anything about climate change

• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

• Chaotic systems are not predictable

• We can't trust computer models of climate

• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

• It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

• It's too cold where I live - warming will be great

• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

• It’s all down to cosmic rays

• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

• The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

• Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

• The oceans are cooling

• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

• It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

• We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

• Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell

• Mars and Pluto are warming too

• Many leading scientists question climate change

• It's all a conspiracy

• Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

• Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

• Polar bear numbers are increasing