|
U-Know! Forum » Nuclear vs wind |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 03, 2005, 18:50
|
||
|
I don't hate you for it. I would, however, ask you to explain why you think it's worth it. I've made several points about aviation and climate change. Do you challenge any of them? If not, and you accept them, how do you square the knowledge that you are playing an active part in jeapordising not merely the livelihoods but the very lives of your family only a couple of generations hence with your overriding desire to do well for your family? Surely it's not only the immediate offspring in the short term that count, surely the later parts of their lives and the lives of their children are just as important.
|
|||
Rolling Ronnie 1468 posts |
Nov 04, 2005, 09:34
|
||
|
To stick my nose into someone elses discussion (again) I don't think that we are arguing that aviation is a good thing, and we have both agreed that ways should be found to reduce it to essential use only. We are never going to agree on what 'essential' means. Maybe Hongnam could reduce his visits to once a year, but if you are in the business of buying and selling it is far cheaper to go the the place the product is manufactured in order to choose your stock than to have all the possible items shipped to you to make your decision. Although I suspect you will argue the point, climate change is not even close to being an 'established fact'. There is a vast amount of research out there and it is contradictory and interpreted differently dependant on the point of view the interpreter wishes to present. In terms of the natural changes in climate vs changes brought about by hydrocarbon use, there is not enough knowledge of natural weather patterns to establish how much is industrialisation and how much is nature. Small example - much is made of the reduction in the antarctic ice cap. There are those that will tell you that this is entirely the fault of CO2 emissions. Other research reveals that this reduction has been taking place at a consistent rate for 400 years. I understand your need to present Climate Change as incontravertable (sp?) fact to support your beliefs, but your assertions are challenged and the waters are muddy.
|
|||
|
Wiggy 1696 posts |
Nov 04, 2005, 13:58
|
||
Unless we can get global politics and institutional reform right, nothing will get better, imo.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 04, 2005, 15:13
|
||
|
"To stick my nose into someone elses discussion (again) " hey, it's a public forum - anyone with a point to make should come on in! "I understand your need to present Climate Change as incontravertable (sp?) fact to support your beliefs" not at all - I'm not interested in picking a position and then defending it even when it's demonstrably untrue. I'm interested in getting to the truth of matters. I presume that none of us are right about everything, and I want to find the stuff I'm wrong about and leave it behind. "Although I suspect you will argue the point, climate change is not even close to being an 'established fact'." I will indeed argue the point. There is not absolute consensus on this, but that is true of any scientific fact. There are qualified doctors who dispute the role of saturated fat in heart disease or a link between smoking and cancer. But when you have 98% of doctors saying it and the point conceded by the vested interests who suffer for it like burger chains and tobacco corporations, it's safe to call it a fact. To say that climate change is not an established fact is to disagree with all but 1 or 2 percent of climatologists. Which of the following do you dispute? - The atmosphere contains carbon dioxide - Atmospheric carbon dioxide influences global temperatures - Human use of fossil fuels has led to a net emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - The addition of that carbon dioxide to the atmosphere increases the influence on temperatures I'm genuinely intersted as to which of those elementary facts of physics you would contest. In the words of the government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, giving evidence to the House of Lords last year, ' The scientific community has reached a consensus. I do not believe that amongst the scientists there is a discussion as to whether global warming is due to anthropogenic effects. It is man-made and it is essentially fossil fuel burning, increased methane production… and so on.' I do still occasionally come across debates about whether it's happening. My favourite has been a Radio Four one between 'eminent scientists'; one of them a climatologist, one an astronomer. No prizes for guessing which one was arguing against climate change. "Other research reveals that this reduction has been taking place at a consistent rate for 400 years." can you give us a source for this? I have only seen data that say polar icecaps are melting at increasing rates, that annual winter freezes come later and leave earlier. If you want to dispute the use of the word 'fact', then can you concede that the way that the evidence mounts, that a small minority of climatologists dispute it shold make us take it seriously as a possibility. That being so, the grave nature of the threat should move us to a precautionary stance, especially when there are other compelling reasons for the same action. When there is hard fact that the age of cheap and plentiful oil is going to be over within a couple of decades, we need to be looking at ways of living after that. Given the lack of any replacement fuels, it means scaling back our oil consumption. Our huge dependency on it means this is an enormous long-term task that will affect a large proportion of our activities. This in itself is enough of a reason to be backing away from the fossil consumption.
|
|||
PlateOfFood 141 posts |
Nov 04, 2005, 15:16
|
||
|
Batwing planes! This will be the main thrust of argument against aviation tax, it seems, although like nuclear it will take too long and cost too much. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1853992,00.html
|
|||
|
Rolling Ronnie 1468 posts |
Nov 04, 2005, 15:51
|
||
|
'Which of the following do you dispute? - The atmosphere contains carbon dioxide - Atmospheric carbon dioxide influences global temperatures - Human use of fossil fuels has led to a net emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - The addition of that carbon dioxide to the atmosphere increases the influence on temperatures I'm genuinely interested as to which of those elementary facts of physics you would contest.' I don't dispute any of these facts. What I dispute is that the meltdown of civilisation within two generations is a given. '"Other research reveals that this reduction has been taking place at a consistent rate for 400 years." can you give us a source for this? ' I will endeavour to unearth it this week-end, but I haven't been told what my plans are for this week-end yet! I agree essentially with a lot of what you say. I believe that governments throughout the world are in the main uninterested in finding a global solution and I am not sure that societies throughout the world are pressuring their goverments even remotely hard enough to make changes. Where I think we disagree is in the degree of crisis at this present time and how to resolve the problems. I am also of the opinion that by focussing everything on fuels we are missing the opportunity to press forward other reforms that would benefit the situation, not least a vast reduction in the use of plastics and the reversal of de-forestation with a massive planting programme wherever land is available. In the process of convincing people of an argument, I always find that suggestion is more readily accepted that statement. The best way to prove you are right is to lead us to the evidence that convinced you and let it convince us as well. Bald statement of 'fact' tends to lead to a negative reaction. Having said that, I believe that any discussion is better than no discussion at all and that is why I keep coming back here. I am always interested, educated and entertained by H2H, it is a truly wonderful place!
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 04, 2005, 19:11
|
||
|
"I don't dispute any of these facts" In which case, are you conceding that climate change is a fact then? It's just that you said "climate change is not even close to being an 'established fact'.", which I believe to be demonstrably untrue. "The best way to prove you are right is to lead us to the evidence that convinced you and let it convince us as well" Sure, I'd even go so far as to say it's the only credible way. It's just that I started from the premise that the existance and urgency of climate change were agreed upon. It was only you and hongnam questioning it that has made me start to put evidence for it. "What I dispute is that the meltdown of civilisation within two generations is a given." Not a given, but highly likely. I'm very aware of numerous 'the sky is falling' claims from all quarters for assorted reasons. The Jehovah's Witnesses have made an entire religion of it. Mostly, I'd ascribe these beliefs to wanting some sense of meaning and importance. If you tell yourself 'these are the last days' then you're living in important times and you are somehow more important. If you say 'time goes on beyond what we can imagine' it can lead to a great feeling of insignificance. But the peak oil thing is definite. We are using a finite resource at an ever increasing rate; there will come a crunch some time. Our society doesn't just need oil, but cheap and plentiful oil. Thus, the crunch comes not when it runs out, but much sooner when a cheap, plentiful supply can't be delivered. Wanting to make the case clear, in an article on this site I deliberatley chose a lot of evidence from well-informed people and institutions, most of whom have a vested interest in denying there's a problem. http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=53 According to all credible sources I know of, peak may have started last year, it may be anything up to 40 years away, but by far the most likely is within 20. The US government says it needs a minimum of 20 years planning using a Crash Program approach (ie making it one of the main focuses of society) if we're to get out of it without major social problems. So it's not that peak means meltdown is a given, but doing nothing about it far enough in advance does mean extreme social upheaval as we haven't seen before.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 04, 2005, 19:11
|
||
|
On the climate change front, the effects on desertification or flooding on topsoil will be catastrophic for farming. In the longer term, it is not unlikely that earth will become uninhabitable for humans within a millennium. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - not exactly wild-eyed scaremongers - says we need CO2 emission cuts of at least 60%, more like 90% if we are to offset the worst of it. We are not only failing to meet Kyoto's target of a 5.2% cut, we are actually increasing. The UN Panel said we can expect a global temperature increase of 1.5-6 degrees by 2100. More recent estimates from atmospheric scientists say the upper estimate should be between 7 and 10 degrees. The unsure element is that first couple of degrees will set off other reactions. Melt the ice caps and the seabed sediment starts to degrade. Cut the rainfall and/or increase temperature in temperate places and peat bogs dry out, their undegraded substance breaks down and gives off huge quantities of CO2. Temperate trees need cold winters to bud; no more beech, blackcurrant, oak or what have you. So, the effects themselves will create more CO2 and less trees. 250 million years ago there were volcanic eruptions that put vast quantities of CO2 and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. It caused a global temperature increase of 6 degrees in a very short space of time. Life on earth itself nearly died, and certainly had we been around we'd have been extinct. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/07/01/shadow-of-extinction/ "I will endeavour to unearth it this week-end" - would be glad to see it. I would love to be wrong on this stuff. For ages I held out against believing much of it because I knew how depressing it would be to face it. As Jim Bliss puts in his peak oil feature in U-Know, it's horrible coming to terms with it, and much of denial is a perfectly understandable reluctance to accept what this stuff really means if it's true. But like I said ealrier, it's arguing against almost all climatologists to deny climate change, and indeed already the increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather is here. The ten hottest years on record are since 1990. Sixteen of the top 17 are since 1980. "I am also of the opinion that by focussing everything on fuels we are missing the opportunity to press forward other reforms that would benefit the situation, not least a vast reduction in the use of plastics and the reversal of de-forestation with a massive planting programme wherever land is available." Broadly speaking, I agree. But the thing is, our use of fossil fuels is profligate. There is simply no need for one person to burn the oil it takes to carry a ton of metal with them everywhere they go. There is no need to have apples flown in from New Zealand or potatoes from Egypt. Those fossil sources are key to the bumper crops we've come to depend on. As the crunch hits, it's obscene to squander them on cars or disposable plastics. The reforestation is also a big deal, although we should be clear on what forests we plant, and the term 'land available' should respect the huge ecological value of other wild areas such as grasslands and peat bogs. Land use is my main reason for not eating animal products. An animal-rich diet takes a hell of a lot more land than a plant-based one. Meat production is the prime reason for the Amazon's continued deforestation. There are a lot of ways we can minimise our resource consumption, and I think we should proiritise non-renewables, and it seems clear top of that list must surely come the fossil fuels, both for reasons of conserving them as precious and also that using them exacerbates climate change.
|
|||
|
Genereth 33 posts |
Nov 05, 2005, 12:03
|
||
Reducing the demand for power IS possible but unfortunatly it would probably take government investment and subsidy as well as unpopular laws forcing people to change their habbits (remember the banning of coal fires in the 50s to prevent the London pea soupers) - but can you imagine if every house in Britain had a roof covered with solar pannels - it is possible and it would work.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
