Climate change

2,030 posts in this topic

That's the thing really, whether it's happening or not is kinda moot, we should be changing current practices to benefit humankind as a whole for now and the future, there's nothing to lose and all to gain.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a categorical difference between fossil fuels and CFCs, CFCs are not a source of energy. I agree with you that alternative fuel sources should be pursued, for 1001 reasons other than CO2 emissions reduction. Hell, I ride my bike to work every fucking day. That's pasta as an alternative fuel for you!

 

But what we see going on today is that due to the hysterical catastrophe attitude being pushed by the CO2 cult, things are driven to extremes, resulting for example in food shortages in exchange for so called "green" fuel which is ridiculously inefficient because of the need to invest fossil fuels in its growing process! This is what happens when hysterics combine with thick-skulled politicians who should really be somehow removed from the whole decision process regarding the planet's future because they are obviously so acluistic they do more harm than good every step of the way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguments that 'reducing emissions is too expensive' also miss the point - does it count as a cost if, for whatever motivation, one country develops a technology that allows cars to run on salt water, for example, and create no emissions. It's pretty obvious that this technology will be a big seller and win huge profits for whichever corporation developed it. Sadly when I listen to the likes of Bush telling us all there isn't a problem all I hear is Big Oil talking, with a sub plot from Detroit who also missed the boat on clean technologies. They say climate change isn't happening and we're OK as we are, but the two arguments are entirely separate.

 

Naturally the water-driven car technology doesn't exist, and probably never will, but still we need laws that encourage innovation and however refined the internal combustion engine gets it will always be inefficient. Without wanting to make the debate more political Bush again seems to love stifling innovation, preferring status quo, as he has simply no vision. Oil is expensive, dirty, polluting at every stage of its refinement and use, cars dependant on the IC engine will always be inefficient, something better must be waiting to be found and we shouldn't need the threat of climate change to motivate the creation of this technology.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never realized someone as stupid as Bush could stifle innovation in other developed countries with scientists too... Ole georgie gets far too much credit for being the master of intricate conspiracies, he can barely eat a peanut without killing himself..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Bush does wield an influence far over his IQ as he controls lots and lots of US money, either directly or indirectly, and his lack of vision hurts mainly US companies. He hasn't stopped the Japanese developing a healthy lead in clean technologies, a lead that Detriot will probably pay for dearly in the coming years. By pretending we don't need clean technologies he's buying time for US car companies, but it most likely won't help, and is wholly disingenuous.

 

Sadly not, although I guess you were being sarcastic. Bush adds laws to prevent innovation, for example stem cell research, which although not relevant to this debate is a nice illustration of his 'moral' religious values trumping freedom to work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's a categorical difference between fossil fuels and CFCs, CFCs are not a source of energy. I agree with you that alternative fuel sources should be pursued, for 1001 reasons other than CO2 emissions reduction. Hell, I ride my bike to work every fucking day. That's pasta as an alternative fuel for you!

 

But what we see going on today is that due to the hysterical catastrophe attitude being pushed by the CO2 cult, things are driven to extremes, resulting for example in food shortages in exchange for so called "green" fuel which is ridiculously inefficient because of the need to invest fossil fuels in its growing process! This is what happens when hysterics combine with thick-skulled politicians who should really be somehow removed from the whole decision process regarding the planet's future because they are obviously so acluistic they do more harm than good every step of the way.

Actually I kind of agree with you on the biofuels thingy. I think its more about making a quick buck thou - people have realised green sells so biofuels are the quickest way to cash in.

 

Ahh Detroit. Spent 5 weeks there earlier this year. To be honest I think if I came from there I'd want the world to end sooner rather than later too. Its an awful place

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where is Kylie.Dürr's authoritative thoughts on this when you need them.

 

He is the only scientist I will listen to.

First of all, I'm NOT a he, I'm a she. A German girl who loves TT but TTers hate her.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A colour, a gem stone, a Cockney slang term for a curry, a fuppet who used to post here, take your pick.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A colour, a gem stone, a Cockney slang term for a curry, a fuppet who used to post here, take your pick.

You forgot semi-hype webternet programming language

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He hasn't stopped the Japanese developing a healthy lead in clean technologies, a lead that Detriot will probably pay for dearly in the coming years. By pretending we don't need clean technologies he's buying time for US car companies...

Ford Mondeo hatchback 2.0 litre "Titanium" co2 emmissions 189/km

 

Toyota Avensis saloon 2.0 litre VVti Saloon co2 emmissions 191/km

 

Honda Accord saloon 2.0i litre vtec saloon co2 emmissions 189/km

 

I do not see the healthy lead according to the govt co2 emmissions data for the above 3 vehicles. They are all pretty much the same type of vehicles (no I am not comparing the a 1.1 litre Ford to a 25.0 litre supercharged Japanese Skyline etc).

 

If you are talking about the Prius, I would question your understanding of what is enviromentally friendly and/or, indeed, progressive.

 

 

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

 

 

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/e...asp?NewsID=188 (The full article on the Prius containing an opinion from Greenpeace)

 

The other problem with the "clean technology" is what to do with all the batteries afterwards. Most of them cannot be reclaimed and are highly poisonous. The actual process of reclaiming the little that is actually reclaimable is actually very energy intensive and causes yet more pollution.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually hybrid is not the future. The batteries weigh a ton which means the cars are only economical up to a range of 30km which means after that you're carrying an extra person.

 

Hydrogen is also dirty. The process of making it that is.

 

A lot is said about CO2, but not much is said about the nitrogen oxide that cars pump out that is far worse. Besides, cars only account for 15% of the world's cO2 production. Got that info froma mate who works for a certain car manufacturer so the info may be dodgy. What was interesting though was how the German government said they would do something when the UN Climate report came out earlier this year and then when the EC tried to clamp down on the automobile manufacturers by imposing a flat rate wrt cO2 emissions irrespective of car size Merkl blocked it saying it was detrimental to the German car industry who produce larger cars and should therefore be allowed to pump more shit into the atmosphere than their smaller French and Italian counterparts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made an observation recently.

 

I tried to learn something about an american view on developments regarding the Bali confercence. First I went to the webpages of several big newspapers and CNN, but found nothing. Then I did a google news search (bali location:usa)

 

The best I could come up with was "The Christian Science Monitor"...

 

In comparison: every bigger german newspaper has published one or more articles about the conference in the last week; and they are very easy to find (main page mostly or google news search bali location:germany).

 

Ok I know we germans are a little climate change crazy. But the discrepancy still is a little staggering. Even if you disagree with the german view, wouldnt you want to know whats going on?

 

Maybe I just didnt look at the right places... maybe it can only be found in the print versions...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now