| Author | Message | ||
     Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 229 Registered: 10-2005 |
Again, another mistatement tjohn...Rationalization involves the use of Logic and reasoning. The use of Circumstantial Logic/Evidence is considered a break-down, or a failure of Logical Reasoning. Intelligent people do their best to AVOID the use of Circumstantial Evidence for their decision making...this is a natural inclination, which results in Stereotyping, Racism, innocent Death Row convictions, etc. etc. Yet I'm told to set this aside for Global Warming....because if I don't, "oh BOY it's gonna be scary" If you want a list, start a new thread....I'm happy to join, but not willing to drift off of a very clearly stated topic. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 770 Registered: 10-2004  |
Scientific organizations the world over have documented reams of data and many papers that show that GW cannot be of natural causes alone. national academy of science report new scientist web site article union of concerned scientists Its real science Smarty. Keeping your head in the sand does nothing to change the facts. Cleaninp up our act today will help to keep your childrens, children with an Earth that is still environmentally stable. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3001 Registered: 5-2001  |
Malone: I believe the huge amount of data showing the quantity of, and impact of, anthropogenic global warming. Because of this, and because of the many problems that fossil fuel use causes, I drive a Prius. My electricity is supplied by a renewable energy provider. Almost all the lighting in my home is from CF bulbs. We recycle. We make compost from kitchen and yard scraps. We expect to have a large solar array on the house in the next year or so. In short, my family walks the walk. Just curious... what do YOU do about problems that you think the country or world faces, or is your role strictly to whine about the whiners? | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 230 Registered: 10-2005 |
Notehead, this is a geniune question (not a retorical challenge) asked out of curiosity....what are the positive affects achieved by recycling? I've always been curious. (ie Gatherers in the city get $0.05 for reusable material like cans and bottles....since we don't get paid the same amount for most of our recycling offerings, I've often wondered how much of the material actually gets re-used vs. being piled up in separate piles at the dump). | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 771 Registered: 10-2004 |
World View of Global Warming great site with pictures of what is happening due to GW | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3002 Registered: 5-2001 |
The question is not wether GW exists (it obviously does). The question is how much of an impact are us humans having on the climate. Did I stutter....? No. You just keep asking the same question without paying any attention to the responses. The question has been answered on this thread and many others on the subject before this. Look at tom's data. Look at the links Hoops posted. Those are just the tip of the (melting) iceberg. You and others on this board keep raising the same objections regardless of consensus in the scientific community and the information that has been posted here. I get the feeling that you have no interest in the facts. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 231 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hoops, I don't question that there are many organizations that are concerned, nor do I question the volumes upon volumes of data in readings and models that are being produced to support their theories. I don't question citizens concern about what impacts we have on the environment, and doing things to improve the world around them. I do question the logical use of the data/studies, and I do question the ultimate motivation behind many of the organizations in this game. (ie when Exxon sponsors a study showing how Fossil Fuels have no measurable impact on the environment, I tend to discount the validity of the study). The politization (word??) of this topic has caused a deluge of groups and organizations on both sides, each representing their camp for non-altruistic reasons (see International Government Pile-on to the US with Kyoto Treaty). It's tough to sort-out who is truly independent anymore. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3003 Registered: 5-2001 |
Smarty, the politicization of this topic is undeniable. But while the motivation of a petroleum company to skew studies is clear, why would a purely scientific non-partisan organization make up data to say there is anthropogenic warming? There are plenty of other things to study. And what about the self-regulating mechanism of peer review which is a required part of professional science? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 772 Registered: 10-2004 |
Fine. Do your homework and research the organizations and see what is 'gained' from espousing one side or the other. Then take a long look at these studies published by primary science organizations like the national academy of science. Believe what you will but please do not deny that the science exists and it is not as you say circumstantial. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3004 Registered: 5-2001 |
Smarty: its about obtaining and using resources. The production of new glass, metal, cardboard, and paper require huge amounts of raw materials and energy and have very deleterious effects on the environment. Recycling them uses far less energy and resources, and also results in a greatly reduced amount of garbage going to landfills. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3988 Registered: 12-2001  |
"The use of Circumstantial Logic/Evidence is considered a break-down, or a failure of Logical Reasoning. Intelligent people do their best to AVOID the use of Circumstantial Evidence for their decision making...this is a natural inclination, which results in Stereotyping, Racism, innocent Death Row convictions, etc. etc. " Certainly, but what do you do when all you have is circumstantial evidence? Is it rational to say that, absent absolute proof, we should do nothing. We may have to release some people from prison if that is the case. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 232 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hoops, it's not the science that is circumstantial, it's the logic used to make the statements. Use TJohns charts as a perfect example of the use of Circumstantial Evidence... 1- Chart One illustrates increase in global air temparature 2- Chart Two illustrates an increase of Co2 at Mauna Loa over the same time period. 3- Chart Three illustrates that Fossil Fuels have gone up dramatically over same time period. THUS we conclude: The increase of Fossil Fuels has Increase the amount of Co2, and Has caused the increase of Global Temparatures.... Many failures of Logical reasoning in that approach. I could show you a chart of the US Bond Markets, that has skyrocketed on about the same time period as Chart #4, yet nobody would say: "The increase of Fossil Fuels has Increased the amount of Co2 in the air, and has caused the US Bond Markets to Skyrocket!" | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3989 Registered: 12-2001 |
The charts aren't mine. Nevertheless, the correlation of global air temperatures, CO2 levels and fossil fuels is quite different than a correlation of CO2 levels and the stock market. The reason is that it is a fact that burning fossil fuels releases CO2. It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So, at the very least, a scientist might reasonably hypothesize that these two events are a factor in global warming and then see if that hypothesis can be proven. The only problem is that the hypothesis is very difficult to prove because we don't have the data for the last ten million years or so. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 773 Registered: 10-2004 |
sure. But its not only tjohns charts. At the end of the day you can believe what you want. I look at the evidence and it strongly suggests that not only is GW real, it is alarming and has to be addressed. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 233 Registered: 10-2005 |
TJohn, please produce the strong Correlations you claim exist. (This is actually a trick question, because statistically speaking, these correlations don't exist from today's data. They may exist tomorrow, but hey "why wait until it's too late? Lets just charge ahead" Hoops, where does the evidence suggest this need of yours to be Alarmed? Are we alarmed that avg temps are up 1 degree over 100 years? Are we alarmed that Ocean Levels (that have always been dynamic) are rising? Or are we truly alarmed because we believe that a Million Year Storm is going to hit New York City and will bring temparatures of Negative -300 degrees, and insta-freeze this city, like in "The Day After"? What is it that you find so alarming, as demonstrated by the overwhelming evidence you have viewed? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 774 Registered: 10-2004 |
Smarty, Please review the websites I posted. If the data and descriptions of what is happening do not alarm you then feel free to continue to think that there is nothing wrong with a little climate change. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3990 Registered: 12-2001 |
Why don't the correlations exist? What am I missing in the charts? Or are you simply saying that because Earth with an oxygen atmosphere has been around for more than a billion years, forty years of data points is meaningless? If that is the case, then you must support my contention that we won't be able to respond proactively to global warming. We will just respond to effects and hope that the effects don't overwhelm our ability to respond. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 235 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tjohn, just because two charts move in the same direction (for ANY length of time) you cannot conclude they are correlated. It's Statistics 101. When you are looking for corelations, you attempt to hold other factors that impact data constant, to realize which ones are having a measurable impact. It has nothing to do with the billion year argument at all, and there isn't yet a statistical argument showing said corelations. Hoops, I'm happy to read this stuff, but really it's unneccessary....it's forcefed to us all on a daily basis, so unless there is going to be something new, I doubt I'll happen upon any personal revealations. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4271 Registered: 5-2001 |
Smarty, is there any data that it is possible to get that you would find convincing? Hypothetically speaking, if we knew X and Y then you would be convinced? Really just blue-sky it and define X and Y for us. If we're going to hold out for 5 billion years' worth of data, Maplewood will be on a beach and it'll be 130 degrees in April and we won't be able to conclude that things have warmed up. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4272 Registered: 5-2001 |
actually I posted three charts, not two, that move in the same direction. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3991 Registered: 12-2001 |
"Tjohn, just because two charts move in the same direction (for ANY length of time) you cannot conclude they are correlated. It's Statistics 101. " Actually, I can correlate practically anything I want. What is of interest is whether or not the correlation is causitive. Anyway, I merely noted that a scientist might reasonably develop a hypothesis that burnning fossil fuels combined with deforestation was leading to an increase in CO2 levels and that CO2 levels were contributing to global warming. Then, the challenge for the scientist would be to prove this. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 236 Registered: 10-2005 |
By Causitive, I think you mean "Positive Correlation" and I think what you are saying is exactly my point...you can look at Corelations of any data, whether or not they are Positively Corelated is a different story. Two charts could appear identical, but actually have a negative corelation. Actually, I think you have stated my thoughts quite clearly, which is that we are at a Hypothesis stage right now, yet most would like to believe we are at a conclusion stage. As for what data would matter to me? That's a very very good question, and I don't know if I've got an answer to that. I read a pretty compelling study about ice-melt in the crusts that was fascinating (but not worthy of Global/Universally sweeping conclusions). I'm certainly open-minded to the study and development of the hypothesis, and if we take an extra few years determining an appropriate course of action, that doesn't worry me in the slightest. Better to get it right, particularly when so many other things could be harmed by our actions (ie immediate universal curbing of green house gas emmisions would crush some emerging 3rd world economies, causing famine and civil unrest. Real people will die today). I don't agree with the current trend of scientific modeling, because of my own experience...I'm in finance, which has already gone through it's own "Financial Modeling" craze, and as we're all learning, the models can/will fail. That's why life is so exciting..... | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3115 Registered: 3-2004 |
We have global warming. Why should we exacerbate it with greenhouse gases, fossil fuels and general air pollution? Smarty, can't you agree that these are pollutants? Do you think they have could possibly have no impact at all? Where do you think fossil fuel effluent goes? Into outer space? | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 242 Registered: 10-2005 |
I'm all for cleaning up Air and Water Pollutants that cause Smog(and other problems) and ruin our lakes/land/rivers. If we dedicated the same amount of resources to these problems as we have toward GW, the world would verifiably be a better place to live. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 520 Registered: 10-2005 |
So let's move this conversation forward shall we? Notehead, Tom, Hoops, Tulips and the rest of the pro-GW crew-what do each and every one of YOU plan on doing to alleviate GW? | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 920 Registered: 9-2004 |
notehead-- the % rebate for Solar cells on the roofs in NJ goes down each year-- get the lead out. smarty- its not about the 2 charts-- its about connection, or connect the dots. Where is the connection between bond sales and co2 levels? Burning of Bonds creates c02? Joking--- "THUS we conclude: The increase of Fossil Fuels has Increase the amount of Co2, and Has caused the increase of Global Temparatures.... " Wrong. Heres the connection-- restated from upthread. Burning - of Fossil Fuels releases the co2 that was in the Fossil fuel. one of the reasons why its called a hydrocarbon. co2 link to increased temps, is quite clear-- think ice cores. Since you cannot physically link bond sales to creation of co2-in any appreciable manner- your comparison is fruadulent. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 248 Registered: 10-2005 |
Foj- So it's connected because you say it is? I wasn't aware of that....you've effectively changed my mind. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4274 Registered: 5-2001 |
No, not because he says. Because of two scientific facts: One, burning hydrocarbons releases CO2. This is chemistry. Take Methane, as the simple case, CH4. When burned it combines with oxygen in the air, O2. The carbon atoms split off from the methane molecules and bind with the oxygen, producing various amounts of CO2 or CO (carbon monoxide), H20 and leftover carbon, depending on the efficiency of the reaction. Therefore a connection: burning fossil fuels -- hydrocarbons -- releases the greenhouse gases CO and CO2 into the atmosphere. Two, the temperature link. The "greenhouse gases" are called that because they tend to trap heat. A tabletop experiment you can do at home demonstrates this effectively (http://www.picotech.com/experiments/global/globalwarming.html). So, burning hydrocarbons releases greenhouse gases; greenhouse gases cause rising temperatures. Therefore, burning hydrocarbons raises temperatures. This is not a matter of opinion or say-so. It's chemistry and physics. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 529 Registered: 10-2005 |
See my question above... | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3006 Registered: 5-2001 |
Scrotis, see my answer from before you even posted the question. (Pay attention, dude!) Foj: I wasn't aware of that, but PV prices are poised to come down significantly as soon as silicon providers increase production capacity, which should be soon. Should offset the declining rebates at least a bit. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 922 Registered: 9-2004 |
Notehead-- I have a friend who installs PV - He is facing a 6 month backlog on product. IIRC end of january the 70% rebate ends. ANd you are only allowed to produce electricity for yourself. PSE&G doesnt allow for selling back to the grid-- which should be changed- as its utterly ridiculous. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3010 Registered: 5-2001 |
I totally, totally agree. And I am holding onto the hope that the net-metering laws in NJ will be changed. Unfortunately, it could be another year before we get the PV going, since we need to rebuild our entire second story first. | ||
| Elgato Citizen Username: Elgato Post Number: 7 Registered: 2-2004 |
Foj, I have heard about the PV backlog but I am interested in finding out more about installation one of these days if I have the required roofspace. Does your friend install the complete works? Could you PL me details please? Thanks. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 411 Registered: 2-2003 |
Before you consider a PV system, make sure you have solid southern exposure without any obstructing trees. In terms of clean energy in Maplewood, the recycling center is a perfect place for solar panels. The town might still be eligible for a rebate and low interest loans. The TC also should seriously consider Windmills along the top of the South Mountain reservation. According to the US Geologic Survey it a class 3 area. However judging from the number of downed trees up there, I'd bet there's is good amount more wind up there. The town could sell the electricity back to PSG&G and also sell clean energy credits. Wind is far more efficient that solar, at least for now. another option for clean energy in MW/SO includes a series of microhydro-generators along the creek running through Maplewood Park. I've never seen it run dry and it may certainly offset electricity costs for the fire and police departments across the street. Again for renewable energy, the town could sell clean energy credits. If anyone has a garage and a newer model turbo diesel, I'm still looking to start a bio-diesel cooperative. Bio-diesel actually is way less enviromentally intrusive than dino-diesel or petrol because to grow the soybeans or rapeseed, CO2 is converted into O2, H2O and hydrocarbons. It also helps American farmers and not Oligarchs and corrupt politcians. Even if your driving a Prius your adding uncompensated CO2 into the environment, though I'll take a Prius over a gas guzzling SUV any day. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3013 Registered: 5-2001 |
Windmills in the res is a brilliant idea, environmentally and economically. And I agree that there are a lot of locations to get a mix of small-scale renewable energy projects installed. Just try pitching it to the decision-makers, who have given no indication that they give this subject any thought whatsoever.  I sat in on a meeting of the South Orange energy task force a year ago and they apparently had no idea what a grid-intertied renewable energy system is. Someone brought up the subject of solar and actually made a remark about the power going out on rainy days. The PSEG "experts" who were also there just chuckled. Meanwhile, the studies on human-caused global warming continue, and the more we learn, the stronger the case for switching away from fossil fuels gets... here's a new one. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 412 Registered: 2-2003 |
How often does the Maplewood/South Orange energy task force meet? If you can find a date I will make every effort to be there. I read a similar article from the BBC, not a good situation. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 620 Registered: 2-2004 |
Andy, I love southern exposure! | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3016 Registered: 5-2001 |
And also today, something new from the Washington Post. I've bolded a special section about the administration's fascinating compulsion with hiding the truth because someone, somewhere might lose a few bucks in the short term. Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee 'Tipping Point' When It Is Too Late to Act By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, January 29, 2006; A01 Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend. This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible. There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe. The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet." "It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something." Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer, who also advises the advocacy group Environmental Defense, said one of the greatest dangers lies in the disintegration of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold about 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet. If either of the two sheets disintegrates, sea level could rise nearly 20 feet in the course of a couple of centuries, swamping the southern third of Florida and Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. While both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets as a whole are gaining some mass in their cold interiors because of increasing snowfall, they are losing ice along their peripheries. That indicates that scientists may have underestimated the rate of disintegration they face in the future, Oppenheimer said. Greenland's current net ice loss is equivalent to an annual 0.008 inch sea level rise. The effects of the collapse of either ice sheet would be "huge," Oppenheimer said. "Once you lost one of these ice sheets, there's really no putting it back for thousands of years, if ever." Last year, the British government sponsored a scientific symposium on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," which examined a number of possible tipping points. A book based on that conference, due to be published Tuesday, suggests that disintegration of the two ice sheets becomes more likely if average temperatures rise by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit, a prospect "well within the range of climate change projections for this century." The report concludes that a temperature rise of just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit "is likely to lead to extensive coral bleaching," destroying critical fish nurseries in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Too-warm sea temperatures stress corals, causing them to expel symbiotic micro-algae that live in their tissues and provide them with food, and thus making the reefs appear bleached. Bleaching that lasts longer than a week can kill corals. This fall there was widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad that killed broad swaths of corals, in part because ocean temperatures were 2 degrees Fahrenheit above average monthly maximums. Many scientists are also worried about a possible collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, a current that brings warm surface water to northern Europe and returns cold, deep-ocean water south. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who directs Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has run multiple computer models to determine when climate change could disrupt this "conveyor belt," which, according to one study, is already slower than it was 30 years ago. According to these simulations, there is a 50 percent chance the current will collapse within 200 years. Some scientists, including President Bush's chief science adviser, John H. Marburger III, emphasize there is still much uncertainty about when abrupt global warming might occur. "There's no agreement on what it is that constitutes a dangerous climate change," said Marburger, adding that the U.S. government spends $2 billion a year on researching this and other climate change questions. "We know things like this are possible, but we don't have enough information to quantify the level of risk." This tipping point debate has stirred controversy within the administration; Hansen said senior political appointees are trying to block him from sharing his views publicly. When Hansen posted data on the Internet in the fall suggesting that 2005 could be the warmest year on record, NASA officials ordered Hansen to withdraw the information because he had not had it screened by the administration in advance, according to a Goddard scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity. More recently, NASA officials tried to discourage a reporter from interviewing Hansen for this article and later insisted he could speak on the record only if an agency spokeswoman listened in on the conversation. "They're trying to control what's getting out to the public," Hansen said, adding that many of his colleagues are afraid to talk about the issue. "They're not willing to say much, because they've been pressured and they're afraid they'll get into trouble." But Mary L. Cleave, deputy associate administrator for NASA's Office of Earth Science, said the agency insists on monitoring interviews with scientists to ensure they are not misquoted. "People could see it as a constraint," Cleave said. "As a manager, I might see it as protection." John R. Christy, director of the Earth Science System Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said it is possible increased warming will be offset by other factors, such as increased cloudiness that would reflect more sunlight. "Whatever happens, we will adapt to it," Christy said. Scientists who read the history of Earth's climate in ancient sediments, ice cores and fossils find clear signs that it has shifted abruptly in the past on a scale that could prove disastrous for modern society. Peter B. deMenocal, an associate professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, said that about 8,200 years ago, a very sudden cooling shut down the Atlantic conveyor belt. As a result, the land temperature in Greenland dropped more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit within a decade or two. "It's not this abstract notion that happens over millions of years," deMenocal said. "The magnitude of what we're talking about greatly, greatly exceeds anything we've withstood in human history." These kinds of concerns have spurred some governments to make major cuts in the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming. Britain has slashed its emissions by 14 percent, compared with 1990 levels, and aims to reduce them by 60 percent by 2050. Some European countries, however, are lagging well behind their targets under the international Kyoto climate treaty. David Warrilow, who heads science policy on climate change for Britain's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that while the science remains unsettled, his government has decided to take a precautionary approach. He compared consuming massive amounts of fossil fuels to the strategy of the Titanic's crew, who were unable to avoid an iceberg because they were speeding across the Atlantic in hopes of breaking a record. "We know there are icebergs out there, but at the moment we're accelerating toward the tipping point," Warrilow said in an interview. "This is silly. We should be doing the opposite, slowing down whilst we build up our knowledge base." The Bush administration espouses a different approach. Marburger said that though everyone agrees carbon dioxide emissions should decline, the United States prefers to promote cleaner technology rather than impose mandatory greenhouse gas limits. "The U.S. is the world leader in doing something on climate change because of its actions on changing technology," he said. Stanford University climatologist Stephen H. Schneider, who is helping oversee a major international assessment of how climate change could expose humans and the environment to new vulnerabilities, said countries respond differently to the global warming issue in part because they are affected differently by it. The small island nation of Kiribati is made up of 33 small atolls, none of which is more than 6.5 feet above the South Pacific, and it is only a matter of time before the entire country is submerged by the rising sea. "For Kiribati, the tipping point has already occurred," Schneider said. "As far as they're concerned, it's tipped, but they have no economic clout in the world." | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3995 Registered: 12-2001 |
Notehead, Andrew: With regard to small-scale energy generation projects, it seems wasteful to do this on the town scale. Somehow, it has to be at least statewide to be effective. So, the interest and activism are right, but the focus seems to be on the wrong level of government. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 413 Registered: 2-2003 |
Tjohn, Specifically, how are such projects wasteful? For example, unless you know the cost of a micro-hydro electric generator and what it produces in terms of energy and credits over time, those statement are unfounded. Production of bio-diesel from waste oil has used by multiple co-op's through out the country in a cost effective fashion. Granted, a large electricity generating windmill in the reservation may be beyond the budget of MW/SO, but maybe not for Essex County or at the state level. I haven't posted on MOL for about 4 months, because all that's really done is talk and little more. Basically a waste of time. Try not to think of why it can't be done, but how to do it. |
