The Green Thread

[akhhorus]

Per BnG's request, please keep all talk about the Environment, Environmental policies, the Kyoto treaty, accusations of Hippie-dom and claims about how much granola President Obama pretends to eat in front of the Sierra club here.

[BurgundyNGold]

As per a post in another thread that correctly pointed out that Obama has made no mention of Kyoto, I will respond here.

I fully expect him to bring that debate back from the dead. But it should stay dead. Any program that allows China -- the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gases -- to be exempt from the agreement is a bad deal. Kyoto is one of the reasons that I'm glad that the Dems don't have a super majority in the Senate. I would hope and expect that the Reps would filibuster any Kyoto ratification, as written, until the cows came home.

[Fathead]

I have no problem with the US signing an international greenhouse gas emissions standard, as long as its fair and reasonable. Kyoto fails that test.


And I don't see anything green in this thread yet.

[akhhorus]

As per a post in another thread that correctly pointed out that Obama has made no mention of Kyoto, I will respond here.

I fully expect him to bring that debate back from the dead. But it should stay dead. Any program that allows China -- the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gases -- to be exempt from the agreement is a bad deal. Kyoto is one of the reasons that I'm glad that the Dems don't have a super majority in the Senate. I would hope and expect that the Reps would filibuster any Kyoto ratification, as written, until the cows came home.

It probably would pass in the Senate if submitted for ratification with the new congress. I dont know whats going to happen with it, I expect some talk regarding it but I don't see them passing it unless China/India is included.

I have no problem with the US signing an international greenhouse gas emissions standard, as long as its fair and reasonable. Kyoto fails that test.


And I don't see anything green in this thread yet.

http://www.septicisle.info/uploaded_images/soylent_green-749218.gif

[redskin_rich]

And I don't see anything green in this thread yet......
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7273/greenmananim200jp7.gif
:D

[Fathead]

Mmmmmmm soylent green.

[Fathead]

.....
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7273/greenmananim200jp7.gif
:D

lol I don't even see that anymore. I've become desensitized!

[Keino]

When I was in Middle School, we were discussing the whole Overpopulation/Greenhouse gas yadda yadda yadda and the teacher showed us the movie Soylent Green.

Chalston Heston was the best Over-actor ever.

"Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!!"

"Get your hands off of me you damned Dirty Ape!!!!"

[Fathead]

You forgot

"Those who will not live by the law will die by the law!"

[BurgundyNGold]

It probably would pass in the Senate if submitted for ratification with the new congress. I dont know whats going to happen with it, I expect some talk regarding it but I don't see them passing it unless China/India is included.
It would get filibustered into oblivion in the Senate. The Reps would score points by saying they were protecting the American economy from an unfair treaty that benefited China.

[akhhorus]

It would get filibustered into oblivion in the Senate. The Reps would score points by saying they were protecting the American economy from an unfair treaty that benefited China.

Eh. Assuming wins in Minnesota and Alaska(which is plausible) and Lieberman doesn't support cloture(which is a 50/50 proposition since he's sponsored a lot of environmental legislation), the Dems would need only 2 GOP senators to vote cloture to force a vote. Snowe and Collins could put them over the top, so could Spector, Voinovich and Gregg(all of whom are up for re-election in blue states that went big for Obama in 2010) along with Mccain(who favors changes to Kyoto, but likes the treaty).

I don't think Obama's going to push Kyoto, but will try for individual treaties with India and China along cap/trade lines.

[BurgundyNGold]

Eh. Assuming wins in Minnesota and Alaska(which is plausible) and Lieberman doesn't support cloture(which is a 50/50 proposition since he's sponsored a lot of environmental legislation), the Dems would need only 2 GOP senators to vote cloture to force a vote. Snowe and Collins could put them over the top, so could Spector, Voinovich and Gregg(all of whom are up for re-election in blue states that went big for Obama in 2010) along with Mccain(who favors changes to Kyoto, but likes the treaty).

I don't think Obama's going to push Kyoto, but will try for individual treaties with India and China along cap/trade lines.
I wouldn't have a problem if Obama did what Clinton and Bush didn't do, which is to offer a Kyoto counterproposal that did not fully exempt developing nations.

[flave1969]

As an outsider I just hope Green and Energy Issues get a proper look at full stop by the new administration. I have never really liked Kyoto but just ignoring it hasn't helped the situation.

Forget Nations, this is a Global problem and we need to do something. I look to the US to take a lead that reflects its world standing and its energy consumption.

[Passepartout74]

Do you all think that going green will help or hurt global warming?!

[akhhorus]

Do you all think that going green will help or hurt global warming?!

There are more practical reasons to go green than just global warming. Saving money on buying resources we don't have and on environmental cleanup are two major ones.

[RedskinsDave]

The term Global Warming is dead. The new phrase is Climate Change since there are too many people disproving the global warming craze.

Going green is fine but too often green products are twice the cost of regular ones. I would gladly put in bamboo floors and recycled carpeting in my place but the costs are ridiculous. The same goes for buying a stupid hybrid that takes you 5 years to realize a savings. I met a guy who runs a "green" real estate office. While the idea is okay, the whole concept seems like a marketing gimmick.

[redskin_rich]

The term Global Warming is dead. The new phrase is Climate Change since there are too many people disproving the global warming craze.

Going green is fine but too often green products are twice the cost of regular ones. I would gladly put in bamboo floors and recycled carpeting in my place but the costs are ridiculous. The same goes for buying a stupid hybrid that takes you 5 years to realize a savings. I met a guy who runs a "green" real estate office. While the idea is okay, the whole concept seems like a marketing gimmick.
It seems that a lot of the "green" products end up being more harmful for the environment as well. From the highly toxic hybrid car batteries we will be disposing of in mass quantities in the near future to the mercury laden CFL light bulbs.
How many of you carbon footprint calculators realize that you aren't supposed to throw those CFL bulbs in the trash?

[akhhorus]

The term Global Warming is dead. The new phrase is Climate Change since there are too many people disproving the global warming craze.

Going green is fine but too often green products are twice the cost of regular ones. I would gladly put in bamboo floors and recycled carpeting in my place but the costs are ridiculous. The same goes for buying a stupid hybrid that takes you 5 years to realize a savings. I met a guy who runs a "green" real estate office. While the idea is okay, the whole concept seems like a marketing gimmick.

Thats exactly the problem with personal environmentalism(and to some extent, corporate). Without major govt inducements, it just doesn't make much sense, but once the power rates vs the costs of solar cells(for example) reach equilibrium, then you'll see everybody who owns a building re-roofing their properties with solar cells.

[Fathead]

The term global warming is certainly not dead, its just a subset under climate change. Anthropogenic global warming is less debated than almost any other scientific theory, meaning that the scientific consensus on it is staggeringly in its favor. Only in political circles is it a true "debate".

[BurgundyNGold]

The term global warming is certainly not dead, its just a subset under climate change. Anthropogenic global warming is less debated than almost any other scientific theory, meaning that the scientific consensus on it is staggeringly in its favor. Only in political circles is it a true "debate".
Global warming is accepted as a reality. The only debates on the subject are generally regarding the degree and extent that the current warming trend is man made in the context of a cyclical warming period. Most studies suggest that man made forces (greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, etc) are exacerbating a natural warming trend. There is also debate as to how the current warming will end if man made accelerants persist. Some studies suggest that the end result will be increased cyclone volatility, spreading deserts and foot shortages. Others suggest that melting of the polar ice caps will actually result in another ice age as fresh water from the Greenland ice shelf effectively "turn off" the gulf stream. Still others suggest that the global ecosystem, much as it has historically done, will counteract the current warming trend in more gentle fashions. Since most scientific models are woefully incomplete, it's very difficult to tell.

The safe thing to do is to just lessen man's impact on the global climate so that we never have to deal with an ugly end game.

[Fathead]

Global warming is accepted as a reality. The only debates on the subject are generally regarding the degree and extent that the current warming trend is man made in the context of a cyclical warming period. Most studies suggest that man made forces (greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, etc) are exacerbating a natural warming trend. There is also debate as to how the current warming will end if man made accelerants persist. Some studies suggest that the end result will be increased cyclone volatility, spreading deserts and foot shortages. Others suggest that melting of the polar ice caps will actually result in another ice age as fresh water from the Greenland ice shelf effectively "turn off" the gulf stream. Still others suggest that the global ecosystem, much as it has historically done, will counteract the current warming trend in more gentle fashions. Since most scientific models are woefully incomplete, it's very difficult to tell.

The safe thing to do is to just lessen man's impact on the global climate so that we never have to deal with an ugly end game.

Yeah, I'm studying to be in climate, so I know the scenarios. The debate is in whether we are bleeped in 20 years, 50 years, or 100 years. The two major questions that we are looking the face:

What do we do about major population centers that are right on the coasts? A 3 foot rise in sea level puts a good number of cities with standing water on the streets, and that is entirely plausible if not conservative.

How do we deal with food production as areas that currently handle most of it have different weather patterns?

[BurgundyNGold]

Yeah, I'm studying to be in climate, so I know the scenarios. The debate is in whether we are bleeped in 20 years, 50 years, or 100 years. The two major questions that we are looking the face:

What do we do about major population centers that are right on the coasts? A 3 foot rise in sea level puts a good number of cities with standing water on the streets, and that is entirely plausible if not conservative.
A 36" rise in sea levels is probably overstating the case. The IPCC projections suggest that a minimum of 1 degree increase in global temperatures by 2080 would increase sea levels anywhere from 7" to 15". In the worst case scenario, a 7 degree increase by 2080, sea levels would rise 10" to 23". The current track has the global median temperature levels rising somewhere between 1 and 2 degrees, at our current levels of greenhouse gas output.

How do we deal with food production as areas that currently handle most of it have different weather patterns?
It depends on the scenario. In a 1 degree scenario, things wouldn't look too terrible much different from today, although there would be increases in coastal flooding and desert expansion. In the 7 degree scenario, current coastal production centers (for rice, for example) would see much more flooding -- some of it permanent. Yet, it stands to reason, that other areas would then become amenable to coastal farming. Current bountiful farm lands, such as in Russia and the US midwest, would move further north. Saskatchewan, Manitoba and parts of Ontario would see a huge boon in food production.

The real problems in an unlikely 7 degree scenario would come for the underdeveloped world, where food and potable water are often currently scarce. Due to climate change patterns, supercyclonic storms would be far more regular and world deserts would increase in size by an order of magnitude. The Amazon basin would no longer be a tropical rainforest. The increased heat would likely cause potable water shortages and scarcity in many areas. And there would be a lot more wildfires then there are today.

The good news is that the world is already starting to take notice and there is plenty of time to stem this tide. The 1-2 degree scenario is what we're on track for in most models, should we curb or eliminate our emissions in the next 20 years. Another bit of good news is that precedence is on our side. The last global danger of this sort where CFC compounds (specifically haloalkanes) which were shown to rapidly deplete the ozone layers. Thanks the the Vienna Ozone Convention and, later, the Montreal Protocol in the 1980s, the world had largely phased out haloalkanes by the mid 1990s.

[Fathead]

Yeah, food production can move, its just the logisitics can create nightmares. Which is why awareness is important, planning now and changes in behavior make the problems containable.



And a seven degree increase in 100 years is not that out of the range of sanity. Especially without checks on what we are producing. Thankfully, people are getting on board.

[BurgundyNGold]

Yeah, food production can move, its just the logisitics can create nightmares. Which is why awareness is important, planning now and changes in behavior make the problems containable.
As an American, with honor to our Canadian friends, I prefer to grow my own food, lol. And if deserts expand, the amount of arable land decreases. There will be that much more of a premium on what we now consider to be basic staples. The biggest problem by far, however, will be fresh water. There is already huge shortages of this around the world. Expect that to increase by several fold as the global temperature rises.

And a seven degree increase in 100 years is not that out of the range of sanity. Especially without checks on what we are producing. Thankfully, people are getting on board.
It's certainly not out of the range of sanity, especially if the United States continues or expands its current output levels or if China, India and the world's other developing nations continue their explosive rate of greenhouse gas output as part of rapid industrialization. That's why exempting anyone from Kyoto or any replacement protocol is a bad idea.

The problem is that many developing nations hear from Europe, Japan and, to some extent, the US how they need to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. Some countries, such as Brazil and, to a lesser degree, India have taken this to heart or are at least open to discussion on the topic. China, however, has taken a staunch position that includes denying how much they actually output and blaming the current industrialized nations for causing the problem. At the end of the day, China says that is will make changes to its current manufacturing methods as soon as the G8 pays for it.

I can't say that I blame China and other like minded developing nations. On some levels, I suppose they see the current economic powers as trying to put a governor on their growth, effectively trying to keep them down. Especially since the Kyoto Protocol is, intentionally or otherwise, a double edged sword that has that restrictive effect on the US. That's why it's so important for the US to provide an all-inclusive counterproposal to Kyoto that includes cap and trade provisions and WTO incentives for products that are "green" in both manufacture and sustainability. I wouldn't rule out an exchange of clean manufacturing technology either.

[Fathead]

Fresh water supplies will still be available, its just they will move as well. Which of course creates logistical nightmares again.

[redskin_rich]

You all ignored my earlier post, so I'll state it more simply. Is keeping the temps and water levels down (which might be a part of a cycle anyway) more important than polluting our resources and causing more cancer deaths?

Eh, maybe so. The real problem is overpopulation, after all. Hope my kids kids and their offspring are survivors...

[Fathead]

Its all part of an overall responsibility to watch what we are doing. I agree entirely that trading one problem for another is just stupid.

[akhhorus]

You all ignored my earlier post, so I'll state it more simply. Is keeping the temps and water levels down (which might be a part of a cycle anyway) more important than polluting our resources and causing more cancer deaths?

Eh, maybe so. The real problem is overpopulation, after all. Hope my kids kids and their offspring are survivors...

Overpopulation is a major problem and some of the "green" stuff is toxic, but stuff like the hydrogen engine and the Pickens plan(specifically using natural gas to fuel 18 wheel trucks+solar/wind projects) aren't. People switching lightbulbs to energy efficient ones won't save enough power to make a major difference(it will save you some cash each month though), the same goes for hybrids frankly. Even if everyone drove a hybrid, it wouldn't reduce pollution significantly: France uses Diesel fuel far more than we do(because its cheaper) and they have 1/7 the pollution in a population 1/3 our size because they almost exclusively use Nuclear power for their power grid(and geothermal/wind for most of the rest). Thats where the majority of the pollution comes from.