I'm giving this one its own thread because the other thread is just insane. This comes from Wired Magazine, and it's quick and to the point.

I'm been ranting in favor of #1, #3, ESPECIALLY #6, #7, and #8 (that last one's for you, Laura ) for quite some time. Scott (stonecrest) often ranted in favor of #9, and broken iris is going to love #10.

I'm also glad to know that my feeling was right on #2, and #4 is quite intriguing.

1: Live in Cities
2: A/C Is OK
3: Organics Are Not The Answer
4: Farm the Forests
5: China Is the Solution
6: Accept Genetic Engineering
7: Carbon Trading Doesn't Work
8: Embrace Nuclear Power
9: Used Cars — Not Hybrids
10: Prepare for the Worst

really interesting, thanks for posting

some of these may be true from a greenhouse gas point of view but not from a "green" point of view. but take something like the organic beef one. there is no doubt that organic beef is better for the animals, the people eating it and the local environment. same with genetic engineering, opens up a whole host of possible environmental problems despite the possibility of it being more carbon friendly. and farming the forests could be bad news for habitats while being better carbonwise.

I always thought that AC argument was bullshit. I understand it's still not good for the environment at all, but suck on that you Yankees.

The whole thing is moot anyhow. If it's 110 degrees out, I'm using A/C either way.

My main concern over things like this is that they tend to simplify complex issues too much. Seems like most of them are just ways of excusing our behaviour.

#1 I've never disagreed with this one per say, however it depends on exactly what population sizes we're talking about, space available, and more importantly the lifestyles of the people. if there were just sitting in huts in the bush, that's one thing, if they're living an hour from the city and driving in every day, that's another. and is containing our mess to one area- concentrating it if you will- and keeping other areas relatively pristine better than having everywhere just averagely impacted? probably.

#2 The A/C one is disingenuous. just because there are other things out there- in this case heating- which emit more CO2 doesn't mean that A/C doesn't still contribute to the problem.

#3 Maybe in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, but that's not the full story. The intensive nature of our agriculture and the pesticides used have immense environmental impacts. However, to economically produce food for such a large, omnivorous population, it's what happens. If we had less babies and ate less meat... but I digress.

#4 Here's the one which makes me sick. The impact of this on biodiversity would be devastating, and there are so many other better things to do in combating climate change which we're either not doing or not doing enough of which should be done, rather than anyone even contemplating such a terrible thing as this.

#5

#6 I'm somewhat on the fence with this one. I'm not entirely against them, however I do worry that the precautionary principle is not being satisfactorily adhered to, and I also think the proponents of this are using climate change to get their foot in a door which otherwise may not have opened to them.

#7 Disingenuous again. Of course Kyoto wasn't perfect from the get go. It was our first attempt, a test run if you will. Further, throwing carbon offsets and an emissions trading scheme into the same basket isn't fair. A properly designed ETS- better than Kyoto- should have a high enough carbon price so it gradually becomes uneconomic to pollute. As opposed to carbon offsets which is more like someone continuing to pollute and paying someone to plant a tree.

#8 "There's no question that nuclear power is the most climate-friendly industrial-scale energy source." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA. We have industrial scale renewables, and they don't emit tonnes of CO2 to dig the shit out of the ground, we won't run out of fuel for them, and we don't have to worry about waste storage/accidents/weapons.

#9 Sure, it may be true that buying a certain used car is more environmentally sound than a certain new one, but the way they portray this is potentially misleading, because it diminishes the importance of improving efficiency in the auto industry.

#10 Yep; but don't be afraid, because fear inhibits action.

You guys really need to ask yourselves why China is the solution. It's an ironic answer.

I really needed this thread. It's just totally awesome with recent ongoings in the other thread. How much science from professional scientists that had their work published in reputable magazines has been blown out of the water here?

that's pretty much how science works.

Or you can just move into a high rise in San Diego where you don't have to blare the A/C and be sprawled out in the desert.

We should all move to places that require neither heating nor A/C. One huge city on Madeira!

The San Francisco Bay area works for that as well.

I don't think anyone's going to argue about A/C's consumption (Nate pointed it out), but the point was to just put it into perspective when it's been cited as being "the ultimate American evil" and such.

It also makes an interesting point on living in certain climates can be more or less sustainable. I joked SD around a bit for living in Arizona, but on the flip side, take Alaska, which is a very energy-intensive state because of all the heating that's necessary to battle the arctic temperatures up there.


Care to elaborate? That's the one I didn't really like.


And I worry that the precautionary principle could be taken too far and delay the opportunities at hand. I guess when I see the amazing work of people like Norman Borlaug, I really have no choice but to give genetic modification the benefit of the doubt.[/quote]


Personally, I have no real use for either trading nor taxing--it's just adding middlemen to the process. If you want to stop a certain pollutant, just say you can't emit the damn pollutant.


I reviewed the nuclear thread just to make sure, but you still haven't convinced me that the world can reach such ambitious goals such as the 80% by 2050 that I'm hearing without a combination of several sources of alternate energy and conservation, of which nuclear is one piece.

The burden on electricity generation becomes even larger if the world succeeds in developing fully electric vehicles, which is the only way I can envision getting out the oil mess.

Yeah, the winds from the ocean are practically nature's A/C over there.

San Francisco has a lower average July temperature than Fairbanks, AK. I love the place, but that's a bit chill for my tastes. I'm actually starting to get used to 110 and not hate it.

"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco."
--Mark Twain (or not, according to Snopes)

Except when it comes to global warming... In which case, anything published in reputable magazines IS fact. No questions asked. Because they're scientists. And global warming really isn't up for debate. Unless you're a nutjob.

heh

valid points, but should we have taken someone calling air conditioning the ultimate american evil seriously in the first place?


i can- well, what don't you like about it?


maybe, but that's hardly a realistic or equitable way of getting us where we want to go, is it?


heh, that's because it's more than can be put into a post- you'd need to read a few books. a personal favourite off the top of my head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse ... ble_Energy


indeed, but replacing stationary energy with renewables is a lot easier than finding a "new oil", if that makes sense.

this is why I you

All well and good, but I am still striving for that quiet house in the country. Since I do not work in a big city, this will not be hard to achieve, nor that devastating to the environment. I do not care for most people, and prefer rural or small town life to the big city. So I, naturally, disagree with point number one on a personal level. It may be true, but like the religious to atheists, I will not bend merely for what is considered "true".

China's the manufacturer of seemingly everything in the world these days. Why are they giving China an extra kudos just because the technology is being manufactured there? Are they doing any R&D in that department that's more notable?


What's not realistic about, say, placing a moratorium on new coal power plants and then ordering a series of shutdowns as current plants can be supplanted by other sources of energy? Or saying all vehicles have to achieve a certain minimum efficiency? As far as equitable goes, I don't think there's any way to make things equitable due to societies' emissions being drastically disproprotionate. Not sure what you're getting at.[/quote]


Heh, I like that you promoted an Aussie's book.

Let's take this quote:

The mining issue is a good point, and I'd add that mining in general creates far worse environmental problems than global warming. Still, how does this all compare to coal? I'd imagine that the mining consequences would be about equal, perhaps less for nuclear if the energy per pound in uranium is greater than coal. Construction would be higher for nuclear, but then again, what does the amount of energy necessary compare to? How long would that short term pain be overcome in the loss of emissions from coal?

Also, does this book focus solely on Australia? Wiki says his techniques could halve emissions in Australia, but how would it do in other places of the world? A quick Google put Australia's coal percentage at 80%, where here in the US it's more like 40-50%.


No doubt, but my question still holds true--is there enough energy from your preferred methods for any extra demand?